Tweet
GAYANE NOVIKOVA: "THE US WANTS TO BALANCE RUSSIAN ACTIVITY IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS"
Vestnik Kavkaza
Sept 14 2012
Russia
Interview by David Stepanyan, Yerevan. Exclusively to VK
The director of the Center of Strategic Analysis 'Spectrum', the guest
researcher of Davis Center on Russian and Eurasian Research of Harvard
University, Gayane Novikova, told VK about the role and prospects of
Russia and the CSTO in settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
- What mechanisms of calming the sides of the conflict exist today? Are
Armenia and Azerbaijan able to stop bloodshed in the context of
progressing militarization of the region or this problem demands
efforts by mediators?
- To stop bloodshed at the cross-line between Armenian and Azerbaijani
military forces not only will of the sides is required, but also
understanding of nonsense of bloodshed. It doesn't happen in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as Azerbaijan has to demonstrate resolution
to return the territories controlled by Armenians at any cost. Thus,
for Baku this tactics is reasonable: the Azerbaijani authorities
emphasize priority of the conflict's settlement and support this
attitude in the society, but don't get an opportunity to accuse
Armenia of an aggressive behavior. Regarding acts of sabotage, till
the full-scaled peacemaking treaty is absent, they are inevitable. The
main problem is that the more acts of sabotage are committed, the
more people died both from Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The international society has a lot of other problems, and settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh is not a priority. Thus, sink or swim. I think
the Armenian defense is tested. At the same time, Russia's reaction
as a leader of the CSTO on a possible military campaign is checked. I
speak about Russia only because I except support of Armenia by Central
Asian countries and Kazakhstan which will take a neutral position in
case of military activities between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
- Some analysts in Yerevan and Baku believe that only Russia
has a possibility to influence significantly the sides of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, imposing its variant of settlement on this
or that side. Is this view appropriate, considering the change of the
president in Russia and geopolitical situation in the Big Middle East?
- In general the idea that Russia is the only country which is able to
settle the conflict has certain grounds, as Russia is the most serious
player in the South Caucasus. Moscow considers the South Caucasus as
the zone of its interests. It is no secret that the Kremlin has certain
working leverages on internal and external political processes of each
state. Russia is building relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan relying
on pragmatics and strategic interests of Moscow. I cannot say that
the Kremlin has its clear plan of the conflict's settlement. Moscow
is not interested in defining its position, as in this case it has
to stand for Armenia or Azerbaijan.
By this step Moscow would narrow its strategic partnership and get
another "uncomfortable" neighbor (along with Georgia) in the region.
Therefore, Moscow seems to feel comfortable in the situation of
ambiguity which was formed after 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE
Minsk Group have many times stated that only direct participants of
the conflict can settle it. I think they are right.
- What is the aim of American diplomacy in the region ahead of the
presidential elections in the US?
- It is obvious that ahead of the presidential elections the American
diplomacy needs achievements in the foreign political arena which
can be reached by providing stability in real and potential trouble
spots. I think Hilary Clinton's visit was aimed at meetings and
discussions in Turkey. While visits to Armenia and Azerbaijan were
PR-actions which had to show American interest in stability in the
South Caucasus and desire to balance Russia's activity in our region.
The main task of our authorities is preservation of the
military-political balance in the region. It is unacceptable to incline
on this or that side of non-regional centers - Russia, the US, the EU.
- Today a lot is said about the possibility of Moscow's realization
of the scenario of the August war with Georgia in case of military
operations over Nagorno-Karabakh...
- I don't think these talks have any ground, as Russia at the moment
is focused on prevention of escalation of the conflict which might
lead to unpredictable consequences. First of all, it would be very
difficult for Moscow to choose what side to support. Secondly, the
August war in 2008 had two reasons for intervention - presence of
Russian peacemakers in the South Ossetian conflict zone; and 96-97%
of South Ossetian population has Russian citizenship.
Vestnik Kavkaza
Sept 14 2012
Russia
Interview by David Stepanyan, Yerevan. Exclusively to VK
The director of the Center of Strategic Analysis 'Spectrum', the guest
researcher of Davis Center on Russian and Eurasian Research of Harvard
University, Gayane Novikova, told VK about the role and prospects of
Russia and the CSTO in settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
- What mechanisms of calming the sides of the conflict exist today? Are
Armenia and Azerbaijan able to stop bloodshed in the context of
progressing militarization of the region or this problem demands
efforts by mediators?
- To stop bloodshed at the cross-line between Armenian and Azerbaijani
military forces not only will of the sides is required, but also
understanding of nonsense of bloodshed. It doesn't happen in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as Azerbaijan has to demonstrate resolution
to return the territories controlled by Armenians at any cost. Thus,
for Baku this tactics is reasonable: the Azerbaijani authorities
emphasize priority of the conflict's settlement and support this
attitude in the society, but don't get an opportunity to accuse
Armenia of an aggressive behavior. Regarding acts of sabotage, till
the full-scaled peacemaking treaty is absent, they are inevitable. The
main problem is that the more acts of sabotage are committed, the
more people died both from Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The international society has a lot of other problems, and settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh is not a priority. Thus, sink or swim. I think
the Armenian defense is tested. At the same time, Russia's reaction
as a leader of the CSTO on a possible military campaign is checked. I
speak about Russia only because I except support of Armenia by Central
Asian countries and Kazakhstan which will take a neutral position in
case of military activities between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
- Some analysts in Yerevan and Baku believe that only Russia
has a possibility to influence significantly the sides of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, imposing its variant of settlement on this
or that side. Is this view appropriate, considering the change of the
president in Russia and geopolitical situation in the Big Middle East?
- In general the idea that Russia is the only country which is able to
settle the conflict has certain grounds, as Russia is the most serious
player in the South Caucasus. Moscow considers the South Caucasus as
the zone of its interests. It is no secret that the Kremlin has certain
working leverages on internal and external political processes of each
state. Russia is building relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan relying
on pragmatics and strategic interests of Moscow. I cannot say that
the Kremlin has its clear plan of the conflict's settlement. Moscow
is not interested in defining its position, as in this case it has
to stand for Armenia or Azerbaijan.
By this step Moscow would narrow its strategic partnership and get
another "uncomfortable" neighbor (along with Georgia) in the region.
Therefore, Moscow seems to feel comfortable in the situation of
ambiguity which was formed after 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE
Minsk Group have many times stated that only direct participants of
the conflict can settle it. I think they are right.
- What is the aim of American diplomacy in the region ahead of the
presidential elections in the US?
- It is obvious that ahead of the presidential elections the American
diplomacy needs achievements in the foreign political arena which
can be reached by providing stability in real and potential trouble
spots. I think Hilary Clinton's visit was aimed at meetings and
discussions in Turkey. While visits to Armenia and Azerbaijan were
PR-actions which had to show American interest in stability in the
South Caucasus and desire to balance Russia's activity in our region.
The main task of our authorities is preservation of the
military-political balance in the region. It is unacceptable to incline
on this or that side of non-regional centers - Russia, the US, the EU.
- Today a lot is said about the possibility of Moscow's realization
of the scenario of the August war with Georgia in case of military
operations over Nagorno-Karabakh...
- I don't think these talks have any ground, as Russia at the moment
is focused on prevention of escalation of the conflict which might
lead to unpredictable consequences. First of all, it would be very
difficult for Moscow to choose what side to support. Secondly, the
August war in 2008 had two reasons for intervention - presence of
Russian peacemakers in the South Ossetian conflict zone; and 96-97%
of South Ossetian population has Russian citizenship.