Tweet
RUSSIAN POLITICAL EXPERT: ARMENIA HAS LESS CHANCES TO WIN IN CASE MILITARY ACTION IS RESUMED
H. Hamidov
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/6 2210.html
Feb 22 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with renowned Russian journalist, political expert
and publicist Leonid Radzikhovski.
Some say the recent letter Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
addressed to his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul marked a new page
in development of Armenia-Turkey relations. Do you share this opinion?
I do not think that now we are seeing a cardinal or a radical approach
by Yerevan to improve relations with Ankara. I understand that the
main point involved here is for Armenia to make significant concessions
to Turkey ...
As it is known, these concessions imply certain steps by Armenia to
normalize ties with Turkey being well aware that Turkey will take
such a step after Armenia makes major steps in terms of settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict...
This is what I'm talking about. I do not believe Yerevan will easily
take steps to withdraw from at least part of the occupied areas. In
this case, there is a fundamental myth of the Armenian leadership
based on which the whole political elite of the country fails. It is
absolutely unclear why they needed to wage a war in Karabakh and how
all the Armenian leaders, who o are people from Karabakh ne way or
another, reached power in Armenia? Abandoning the idea of capturing
Karabagh for them is akin to a denial of "genocide" of Armenians.
These are basic ideas for them.
Do you think Turkey may establish diplomatic ties with Armenia based
solely on its own interests without setting liberation of Azerbaijan's
occupied lands as a precondition?
This is a different matter, and, of course, Armenia would be pleased
at this turn of events.
May Ankara eventually choose that option?
I do not see sufficient motivation to Turkey to do so. After all,
such a step would mean severely damaged relations with Azerbaijan. And
what else, besides this, they will get in return?
Maybe early admission to the European Union.
I do not think that Turkey's EU membership is directly connected with
the opening of borders with Armenia ...
For example, Armenia will not demand recognition of the "genocide"
and will stop promoting its recognition in the U.S. and Turkey will
no longer insist on withdrawal from Azerbaijan's lands.
In this context, the question must be considered from several aspects.
"Genocide" recognition is a painful fact for Turkey. But it is less
painful than for the Armenians to return Karabakh. Moreover, the
"genocide" can be recognized with various reservations, wording.
But I do not think that Turkey would open the border without any
preconditions on Karabakh, because I do not believe that it is going
to spoil relations with Azerbaijan. If Ankara was confident that the
opening of the border with Armenia is directly linked with the EU
accession, it would perhaps have done it simultaneously bargaining
some compensations from the international community for Azerbaijan.
I doubt that Turkey's all problems with the EU are related to the
Armenian border. It has a number of other problems. This is the Cyprus
problem and many others.
So, we should not expect the Armenia-Turkey border to open any
time soon?
I think so. Looking from the side, I do not believe that it is possible
to open the border until Armenia makes significant steps in settlement
of Karabakh conflict. I also do not believe Armenia would take those
steps because, as I said above, in this case entire ruling elite of
Armenia will hang in the air.
The last trilateral meeting between the presidents does not inspire
optimism about progress in the Karabakh conflict settlement. In
addition, Armenian FM Edward Nalbandian has announced that no tangible
results on this matter is expected this year.
There is no optimism because there is no progress. I reiterated that
there are no more solutions to the problem. There are only two: Armenia
will return Karabakh or will not. In my opinion, no compensation will
be helpful. The question of land has been acute at all times. In the
case of Armenia ... its statehood began with the war in Karabakh. This
was the first step towards the attainment of identity, independence
and statehood. How then to give up Karabakh? ..
Do you mean use of force is the only way to solve the conflict?
Lately, there have been more and more talks about war in the region.
In principle, Azerbaijan has long announced that its patience is
running out. Suddenly Armenia also began talking about military action
on its part. U.S. intelligence in his report also does not preclude
a military conflict ...
Well, I do not know ... In fact, Azerbaijan has acquired great strength
in recent years. Among all the CIS countries, Azerbaijan has done great
success in recent years. This situation excludes a military solution
to the conflict. When things are bad in the country, there is nothing
to lose. Military action in this case can help save the prestige of
the ruling elite. When the country is developing at fast pace and
attracts loans and population is happy with the state policy, it is
difficult to begin military action. This is the case with Azerbaijan.
Well, why Armenia needs to attack Azerbaijan? They have already
captured Karabakh. What will they occupy next?
In addition, this is not 1990s. In the case of military conflict,
Armenia's has little chances of success. Azerbaijan has become
stronger. The balance of forces in Azerbaijan's favor.
On the other hand, it seems to me that it is not the best solution
to start a war and risk all economic achievements of recent years.
Recently Israeli FM was given a warm reception in Baku amid the
traditional hostile relations between Iran and Israel and recent
cooling in Turkey-Israel ties. In your opinion, is Israeli FM's
visit a move to show that Azerbaijan pursues independent policy in
response Turkey's move to mend relations with Armenia, or just a
planned official visit?
I am sure that neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan is interested in cooling
of relations. It should again be noted that Azerbaijan has changed
very much in recent years and became a very powerful state in the
region. Of course, its opportunities are incompatible with those of
Turkey, but still is one of the most powerful states in the region.
Apart from this, one should not forget about the relationship between
the Azerbaijani and Turkish peoples.
Azerbaijan pursues balanced foreign policy. I do not think Israeli
FM's visit to Azerbaijan should spark Turkey's anger. In the end,
Azerbaijan is an independent country, and it is free to choose friends
and partners. But Iran is, of course, extremely unpleasant.
As for Israel, it is extremely interested in developing relations
with Azerbaijan both for economic and political reasons. Moreover,
normal relations with any Muslim country is important for Israel.
I do not believe that Baku intends to annoy Tehran by its moves. It
leads its own policies. Besides, as I understand it, Azerbaijan's
leadership wants to develop a secular country and at the same time
interested in developing relations with various countries, regardless
of religious or other beliefs. In this sense, relations with Israel
are also symbolic in nature. After all, it once again emphasizes
independent foreign policy of the country which is not afraid of
discontent of any country.
H. Hamidov
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/6 2210.html
Feb 22 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with renowned Russian journalist, political expert
and publicist Leonid Radzikhovski.
Some say the recent letter Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
addressed to his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul marked a new page
in development of Armenia-Turkey relations. Do you share this opinion?
I do not think that now we are seeing a cardinal or a radical approach
by Yerevan to improve relations with Ankara. I understand that the
main point involved here is for Armenia to make significant concessions
to Turkey ...
As it is known, these concessions imply certain steps by Armenia to
normalize ties with Turkey being well aware that Turkey will take
such a step after Armenia makes major steps in terms of settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict...
This is what I'm talking about. I do not believe Yerevan will easily
take steps to withdraw from at least part of the occupied areas. In
this case, there is a fundamental myth of the Armenian leadership
based on which the whole political elite of the country fails. It is
absolutely unclear why they needed to wage a war in Karabakh and how
all the Armenian leaders, who o are people from Karabakh ne way or
another, reached power in Armenia? Abandoning the idea of capturing
Karabagh for them is akin to a denial of "genocide" of Armenians.
These are basic ideas for them.
Do you think Turkey may establish diplomatic ties with Armenia based
solely on its own interests without setting liberation of Azerbaijan's
occupied lands as a precondition?
This is a different matter, and, of course, Armenia would be pleased
at this turn of events.
May Ankara eventually choose that option?
I do not see sufficient motivation to Turkey to do so. After all,
such a step would mean severely damaged relations with Azerbaijan. And
what else, besides this, they will get in return?
Maybe early admission to the European Union.
I do not think that Turkey's EU membership is directly connected with
the opening of borders with Armenia ...
For example, Armenia will not demand recognition of the "genocide"
and will stop promoting its recognition in the U.S. and Turkey will
no longer insist on withdrawal from Azerbaijan's lands.
In this context, the question must be considered from several aspects.
"Genocide" recognition is a painful fact for Turkey. But it is less
painful than for the Armenians to return Karabakh. Moreover, the
"genocide" can be recognized with various reservations, wording.
But I do not think that Turkey would open the border without any
preconditions on Karabakh, because I do not believe that it is going
to spoil relations with Azerbaijan. If Ankara was confident that the
opening of the border with Armenia is directly linked with the EU
accession, it would perhaps have done it simultaneously bargaining
some compensations from the international community for Azerbaijan.
I doubt that Turkey's all problems with the EU are related to the
Armenian border. It has a number of other problems. This is the Cyprus
problem and many others.
So, we should not expect the Armenia-Turkey border to open any
time soon?
I think so. Looking from the side, I do not believe that it is possible
to open the border until Armenia makes significant steps in settlement
of Karabakh conflict. I also do not believe Armenia would take those
steps because, as I said above, in this case entire ruling elite of
Armenia will hang in the air.
The last trilateral meeting between the presidents does not inspire
optimism about progress in the Karabakh conflict settlement. In
addition, Armenian FM Edward Nalbandian has announced that no tangible
results on this matter is expected this year.
There is no optimism because there is no progress. I reiterated that
there are no more solutions to the problem. There are only two: Armenia
will return Karabakh or will not. In my opinion, no compensation will
be helpful. The question of land has been acute at all times. In the
case of Armenia ... its statehood began with the war in Karabakh. This
was the first step towards the attainment of identity, independence
and statehood. How then to give up Karabakh? ..
Do you mean use of force is the only way to solve the conflict?
Lately, there have been more and more talks about war in the region.
In principle, Azerbaijan has long announced that its patience is
running out. Suddenly Armenia also began talking about military action
on its part. U.S. intelligence in his report also does not preclude
a military conflict ...
Well, I do not know ... In fact, Azerbaijan has acquired great strength
in recent years. Among all the CIS countries, Azerbaijan has done great
success in recent years. This situation excludes a military solution
to the conflict. When things are bad in the country, there is nothing
to lose. Military action in this case can help save the prestige of
the ruling elite. When the country is developing at fast pace and
attracts loans and population is happy with the state policy, it is
difficult to begin military action. This is the case with Azerbaijan.
Well, why Armenia needs to attack Azerbaijan? They have already
captured Karabakh. What will they occupy next?
In addition, this is not 1990s. In the case of military conflict,
Armenia's has little chances of success. Azerbaijan has become
stronger. The balance of forces in Azerbaijan's favor.
On the other hand, it seems to me that it is not the best solution
to start a war and risk all economic achievements of recent years.
Recently Israeli FM was given a warm reception in Baku amid the
traditional hostile relations between Iran and Israel and recent
cooling in Turkey-Israel ties. In your opinion, is Israeli FM's
visit a move to show that Azerbaijan pursues independent policy in
response Turkey's move to mend relations with Armenia, or just a
planned official visit?
I am sure that neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan is interested in cooling
of relations. It should again be noted that Azerbaijan has changed
very much in recent years and became a very powerful state in the
region. Of course, its opportunities are incompatible with those of
Turkey, but still is one of the most powerful states in the region.
Apart from this, one should not forget about the relationship between
the Azerbaijani and Turkish peoples.
Azerbaijan pursues balanced foreign policy. I do not think Israeli
FM's visit to Azerbaijan should spark Turkey's anger. In the end,
Azerbaijan is an independent country, and it is free to choose friends
and partners. But Iran is, of course, extremely unpleasant.
As for Israel, it is extremely interested in developing relations
with Azerbaijan both for economic and political reasons. Moreover,
normal relations with any Muslim country is important for Israel.
I do not believe that Baku intends to annoy Tehran by its moves. It
leads its own policies. Besides, as I understand it, Azerbaijan's
leadership wants to develop a secular country and at the same time
interested in developing relations with various countries, regardless
of religious or other beliefs. In this sense, relations with Israel
are also symbolic in nature. After all, it once again emphasizes
independent foreign policy of the country which is not afraid of
discontent of any country.