Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BAKU: Markedonov: "In All Cases Russia Will Have An Influence On Aze

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BAKU: Markedonov: "In All Cases Russia Will Have An Influence On Aze

    SERGEY MARKEDONOV: "IN ALL CASES RUSSIA WILL HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON AZERBAIJAN. ALONG WITH NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT, THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS OF INFLUENCE"

    Today.Az
    http://www.today.az/news /politics/50170.html
    Jan 19 2009
    Azerbaijan

    Day.Az interview with Sergey Markedonov, famous Russian political
    scientist and chief of department of problems of international
    relations under the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.

    - What can you say about the free supply of armament of a total of
    $800,000,000 by Russia to Armenia? Why did the Kremlin take the step,
    which will undoubtedly cause escalation of tensions in the Nagorno
    Karabakh conflict?

    - I think it is incorrect to state this fact this way. The Defense
    Ministry has rebutted the fact of supply of armament to Armenia. It
    is too early to make final conclusions. Anyway, Azerbaijan's external
    policy is focused on Armenia. Therefore, any information about support
    or assistance to Armenia either by Russia or any other country causes
    a painful reaction of Azerbaijan. This is quite clear. I think that
    it would have been expedient not to conceal this information and to
    provide explanation to public. The Defense Ministry has stated that
    it has nothing to do with the armament supply. The Defense Ministry
    could have made a more serious statement.

    - The response of the Russian Defense Ministry did not satisfy the
    Azerbaijani side. On the one hand Moscow after Georgian events tends
    to position itself as a peacekeeper, initiating the adoption of the
    Moscow declaration and on the other hand it supplies arms to one of
    the conflict parties. How can it be explained?

    - It is necessary to learn the details and moments of the fact of the
    free armament supply, as the scandal becomes an object of speculations
    by different sides. Public explanation is needed. The position of
    the Russian Defense Ministry satisfied someone and does not satisfy
    others. The resolution of the Karabakh conflict does not depend on
    the free delivery of arms to Armenia. There are deeper factors.

    - Is it possible in this case to establish a special commission to
    investigate this fact?

    - It is difficult to comment on the Kremlin's position as Moscow does
    not like to justify itself in anything.

    - Is the free supply of armament to Armenia possible in the CSTO
    framework?

    - It is difficult to say this as I am a political scientist not a
    military expert. I can only give a political assessment to this fact.

    - Answering the questions of the Day.Az agency during the previous
    interviews you noted that the resolution of the Karabakh conflict does
    not depend on the Kremlin, saying that only Azerbaijan and Armenia can
    settle this issue. Yet the transfer of the Russian armament to Armenia
    proves once again that Russia has never taken so modest positions in
    this issue and only it can settle this conflict...

    - Let's imagine that the fact of armament supply is confirmed. If
    there have not been the supply, do you seriously believe that there
    is any political formula which contains the future of the conflict
    solution? If the armament supply is real, Baku will state that
    "you see, we have been ready for the conflict resolution but Moscow
    hindered it". We can also ask why Baku creates the military-industrial
    complex, why the head of the Azerbaijani state in his interview to
    Italian mass medias does not rule out armed solution of the conflict,
    though the Moscow declaration fixes the political resolution of this
    conflict. Here, arguments can be used in different ways. In the reality
    the parties are unable to get a compromised solution and if Armenia
    does not get military support from Moscow, it will search it from
    other countries, like Azerbaijan will. The matter is that the conflict
    parties are not ready for compromise. Washington, Moscow and NATO are
    complex things. Russia have definite Azerbaijani lobby groups, mostly
    connected with the fuel and energy complex and it has an influential
    Armenian lobby. The Kremlin's position on Armenia and Azerbaijan is
    hesitatory. However, it is inclined to support the Armenian side. The
    Russian factor, despite its presence, is secondary, not key one. Most
    things are defined by the unreadiness of the parties for a compromise.

    - It becomes clear that today Russia is not interested in the
    resolution of the Kaabakh conflict, as the frozen conflict allows it
    to put pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If the conflict is settled,
    in this case Russia will lose the whole South Caucasus, without the
    levers of influence it has created...

    - Armenia and Azerbaijan are not Germany or EU. These are small
    countries, which can not be self-sufficient and they will be imposed
    to pressure in the framework or beyond the Karabakh conflict. This is
    a myth, like if there is Nabucco, Ukraine will become a democratic and
    a self-sufficient country. Russia will have an influence on Azerbaijan
    in all cases, at least in the issue of split people in Dagestan. It
    is latent, but still it exists. The problem is now settled in the
    Baku-Makhachkala framework. There always are tools of influence along
    with the Karabakh conflict.

    - Do you think Moscow is on Armenian or Azerbaijani side in the
    Karabakh issue?

    - Moscow adheres to pro-Russian position which implies the preservation
    of the quo status. Russia is against the military resolution of the
    Karabakh conflict by Azerbaijan.

    - In this case, why does the quo status and existence of the frozen
    conflict meet the Kremlin's interests?

    - Because there are no other figures, which could replace the quo
    status. For example, you throw out an old sofa to get a new one. Well,
    it is clear that old one is bad but you can sleep on. It is unclear
    whether the new one will also be good. It can even break as masters
    are not too qualified and can not agree which sofa to produce. There
    is no stable and reliable construction which could be legitimate both
    in Yerevan and Baku. If not, why should we defreeze a conflict. If
    we change a situation, we must benefit from it and not just to change
    for changing it.
Working...
X