Tweet
BTC OIL PIPELINE COLD SHOWER FOR THOSE WHO ARE FOR FORCE SETTLEMENT OF KARABAKH PROBLEM
MOSCOW, MAY 20. ARMINFO. However contradictory are economic and
political assessments of the oil pipeline Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, it
is one more "cold shower" for those who are for force settlement of
Karabakh conflict, writes the former co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group
on settlement of Karabakh conflict Vladimir Kazimirov in an article
"Change for Karabakh" published in the Russian press today.
He thinks the project investors are unlikely to count upon the military
actions in the region more than on return of their investment both
political and financial. For example, the negotiations of Ilham Aliyev
and Robert Kocharyan. Seemingly, it is difficult to overestimate
their importance for the conflict's resolution, but for some reason
the leaders are waiting for large international forums for it. On
may 15 in Warsaw on the eve of CE Summit they met for the forth time
only within two years. They seem to consider impossible any progress
in settlement and avoid disappointment with special meetings. After
their two- hour meeting, Aliyev and Kocharyan refrained themselves
from any statements. The OSCE MG co-chairs expressed moderate optimism,
pointing out that the presidents confirmed their interest in peaceful
resolution of the conflict. The responses are quite contradictory:
from skepticism to sensational titles like "Karabakh surrenders" or
"Armenia will return all the seven districts." But the last one was
spoken of by Armenians even in the course of the war, the question
is what return concessions will be, Kazimirov says.
The speeches of both presidents showed that their positions in the
major disputable issue - status of Nagorny Karabakh - are still
different. It is still not clear whether the fire will stop, whether
they will start fulfillment of their obligations on the agreement
of 1995 on settlement of incidents, whether official Baku will
stop bellicose rhetoric. CE was not the place to call for return of
Nagorny Karabakh "by all means possible:" force atavisms fell out
of European values long ago. The subject matter of the conflict's
settlement is complicated, and its components are rich with nuances.
Real difficulties are constantly aggravated with lack of contacts
between the parties, protraction of regular negotiations, search for
gaining from propaganda, sudden attacks on the mediators, forceless
calls for force revanche, Kazimirov writes.
MOSCOW, MAY 20. ARMINFO. However contradictory are economic and
political assessments of the oil pipeline Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, it
is one more "cold shower" for those who are for force settlement of
Karabakh conflict, writes the former co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group
on settlement of Karabakh conflict Vladimir Kazimirov in an article
"Change for Karabakh" published in the Russian press today.
He thinks the project investors are unlikely to count upon the military
actions in the region more than on return of their investment both
political and financial. For example, the negotiations of Ilham Aliyev
and Robert Kocharyan. Seemingly, it is difficult to overestimate
their importance for the conflict's resolution, but for some reason
the leaders are waiting for large international forums for it. On
may 15 in Warsaw on the eve of CE Summit they met for the forth time
only within two years. They seem to consider impossible any progress
in settlement and avoid disappointment with special meetings. After
their two- hour meeting, Aliyev and Kocharyan refrained themselves
from any statements. The OSCE MG co-chairs expressed moderate optimism,
pointing out that the presidents confirmed their interest in peaceful
resolution of the conflict. The responses are quite contradictory:
from skepticism to sensational titles like "Karabakh surrenders" or
"Armenia will return all the seven districts." But the last one was
spoken of by Armenians even in the course of the war, the question
is what return concessions will be, Kazimirov says.
The speeches of both presidents showed that their positions in the
major disputable issue - status of Nagorny Karabakh - are still
different. It is still not clear whether the fire will stop, whether
they will start fulfillment of their obligations on the agreement
of 1995 on settlement of incidents, whether official Baku will
stop bellicose rhetoric. CE was not the place to call for return of
Nagorny Karabakh "by all means possible:" force atavisms fell out
of European values long ago. The subject matter of the conflict's
settlement is complicated, and its components are rich with nuances.
Real difficulties are constantly aggravated with lack of contacts
between the parties, protraction of regular negotiations, search for
gaining from propaganda, sudden attacks on the mediators, forceless
calls for force revanche, Kazimirov writes.