The call for a “ceasefire” means nothing

***

-It is felt that external pressure is exerted on Azerbaijan and Armenia to end military operations, in particular, from Russia. What is the purpose of those who apply pressure?

- Presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev at the last press conference did not hide the pressure on the Azerbaijani authorities. It is clear that the conversation was about Russia. In the early days, the Kremlin did not interfere in the process, even President Vladimir Putin, in response to a journalist's question, answered, “The war is not going on in Armenia”, as if he was explaining the essence of the issue in this way. However, in the early days of the war, the Atlas Research Center suggested that at a later stage, Russian pressure on Azerbaijan would increase.

First, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in his last interview that the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh is important. The aggressor Armenia also wants this. However, this does not meet the interests of Azerbaijan. Those who put the topic of peacekeepers on the agenda want to freeze the conflict and prolong the occupation. On the other hand, if the Russian military is stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh, they will no longer leave Azerbaijan. This will create serious problems for us in the future. Georgia in 2008 wanted to bridle South Ossetia, but Russian peacekeepers blocked its way, and as a result, Moscow launched a war against Georgia, recognized the “independence” of South Ossetia and created military bases in this region.

In other words, Georgia lost South Ossetia, including Abkhazia. We cannot repeat the same mistake. If sometime during the negotiations the issue of peacekeepers is raised, then it will be possible to start a discussion on the arrival of troops in the region from neutral states, for example, the Scandinavian, Baltic or Eastern European countries. This is in line with the decision of the 1994 OSCE Budapest Summit, according to which the composition of the peacekeepers should be formed from neutral states.

Secondly, during the hours when Lavrov's statement about the "importance of the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the region" was being circulated, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu held telephone talks with the Defense Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia Zakir Hasanov and David Tonoyan. During the telephone conversation, Sergei Shoigu called on his Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues to fulfill their respective obligations in connection with the humanitarian ceasefire, an agreement on which was reached on October 10 in Moscow. It is difficult to say whether this was an appeal or a demand. In April 2016, precisely after Shoigu's phone call in Baku, the offensive of our army was stopped, although we could free more territories from the occupation.

Thus, the Kremlin, through Lavrov and Shoigu, increased pressure on Azerbaijan. Moscow's goal is to stop the successful military operations of the Azerbaijani army and save Armenia from a heavy defeat. Armenia and Russia may want to deploy peacekeepers in the region, but if we do not want to, they cannot forcibly accept this position.

- How will Azerbaijan respond to all these pressures and attacks? Is not Azerbaijan left alone in this issue?

 - The growing pressure of Russia on Azerbaijan began to worry Ankara. During a meeting of ministers in Moscow from Ankara came the following statement: "If a third state intervenes, the Turkish army will enter Nagorno-Karabakh." This message was addressed to Moscow. The leader of the Nationalist Movement Party, which is a partner of the government in Turkey, Delta Bahchali, sent a message to everyone at a group meeting of the party: "This is not the time for a ceasefire and negotiations; you need to finish off the occupier of Armenia." This is also a message to us that without Turkey, Russia cannot be accepted unilaterally as a mediator. Like Baku, Ankara supports a military solution to the conflict. In an interview, Sergei Lavrov said that he does not share Turkey's policy regarding the continuation of the war. This attitude of Lavrov towards us suggests that the unilateral mediation of Russia does not meet the interests of Azerbaijan. Russia, on the one hand, claims that "the issue must be resolved through negotiations," and on the other hand, it continues to deliver military equipment to Armenia under the guise of "humanitarian cargo." The Azerbaijani army is engaged in the neutralization of this equipment in the occupied regions.

- If the parties have to return to negotiations, in what format and based on what project can negotiations be held?

- Of course, negotiations will be necessary at some stage. However, before this stage, the Azerbaijani army must liberate most of the territory from occupation so that we can dictate terms at the negotiating table. On the other hand, the format of the co-chairs no longer works. In analyzes published in previous years, the Atlas Research Center has proposed a  2+2 negotiation format (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey and Russia). This format is currently significantly relevant. In his latest statement, Turkish Presidential Aide Ibrahim Kala also proposed this formula and substantiated it this way: "if Russia supports Armenia, then Turkey supports Azerbaijan, which means there should be 4 countries at the table."

Russia and Turkey used the same formula in solving the Syrian problem. The Syrian regime, like the Armenian authorities, did not want to see Turkey at the table, but this did not depend on the desire of Damascus, Moscow and Tehran accepted Turkey's presence at the negotiating table. The possibilities of Russia and Turkey to influence the South Caucasus are wide; if Russia is at the table, then Turkey must also be present. From now on, being at the negotiating table without Turkey will not meet the interests of Azerbaijan. Turkey's presence at the negotiating table means neutralizing the growing pressure on Azerbaijan.

- Why is the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group not noticeable in this situation? Maybe they think that the course of events is no longer within their competence.

- The joint statement issued by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group says that urgent steps must be taken to fulfill the agreement approved on October 10 in Moscow. The co-chairs also appealed to the parties with a request to agree urgently on a ceasefire mechanism. As always, this is an empty statement. This statement shows that the co-chairs are in a stalemate, they cannot influence the process. Before, we depended on intermediaries, and we expected something from them. Now they depend on us, they expect from us that our army would stop the offensive. You made us wait 27 years, now you wait for our army to complete the operation.

The statement by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu coincided with the time when the co-chairs issued the statement. Mevlut Cavusoglu, addressing the co-chairs, noted the importance of calling on Armenia along with the observance of the ceasefire regime to leave the Azerbaijani lands. The co-chairs will not make such a call. In this case, Azerbaijan and Turkey will continue to follow the path that they consider the right one. Cavusoglu's second appeal is also important: “as the Minsk Group, we must meet in a wide format as soon as possible and decide what to do.” In other words, Ankara rightfully wants a report from the co-chairs on their activity so far, and why there was no result. If they do not have the answers to these questions, then their call for a “ceasefire” is irrelevant to us.