Tweet
RUSSIAN EXPERTS ON RUSSIAN SUPPLIES OF ARMS TO AZERBAIJAN
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Thursday, 12 June 2014, 16:45
We initiated an interview on Russian arms supplies to Azerbaijan
with Moscow's leading experts with which we have been acquainted
for a long time and often communicate on political issues. Usually
about 40-45 political scientists, analysts and researchers dealing
with Euro-Atlantic structures, American, European and Middle Eastern
affairs, the problems of Turkey and Iran, as well as China recently
are involved in this communication.
Usually 22 people from leading research institutes in Moscow are
involved in our interviews on the Black Sea-Caucasus region. I must
say that rarely is anyone reluctant to participate in an interview.
But this subject proved sensitive and difficult for many. This can
be understood, and we provide below only the answers of those experts
who either answered the questions, or explained more or less in detail
why they did not want to be interviewed.
The same questions were asked to all the experts. May I ask you to
answer the following questions which do interest people in Armenia?
As is known, Russia continues to supply modern weapons to Azerbaijan,
which does affect the balance of forces in the latter's favor. If
earlier the representatives of Russia stated that these supplies
are part of a plan to keep the balance of forces, now the Russian
Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volinkin says that it is only about
commercial interests. How would you assess Russia's policy? Is it in
line with its commitments to Armenia under the partnership agreement,
will it lead to the outbreak of a full-scale war, what could be the
results of the position of Russia in the South Caucasus; does Armenia
have the right to object to and condemn the policy of Russia; can
Russia, participating in an arms race in the South Caucasus, be seen
as the guarantor of security in the region (if we bear in mind that
Western society does not deliver weapons to Armenia and Azerbaijan)?
You will do us a great favor by sharing your opinions on these or
some of these questions.
Igor Muradian (Analytical website www.lragir.am)
Yazkova Alla Alekseyevna, Doctor of History, Director of the Black
Sea-Mediterranean program, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy
of Sciences
Dear Igor Maratovich,
Have not heard of you for ages. Your questions addressed to us (me and
Prof. Gromyko) in your letters and your interest in the problems of
extremely topical regional relations in the South Caucasus are quite
clear. As an academic institution, the Institute of Europe and the
division headed by me certainly examines the status and changes in
the balance of forces in the South Caucasus region, and we publish the
results of our research in scientific journals and in the press. I do
not know if you are familiar with my article about the South Caucasus
in one of the last issues of the Modern Europe. But we don't think we
have the right to go public on Russia's position, especially Armenia.
Unfortunately, that our and your financial difficulties do not allow
us to meet more often and exchange views and positions.
Alla Alekseyevna
Alikber Alikberov, director of the Center for Central Asia, the
Caucasus and the Volga-Ural Institute of Oriental Studies
Dear Mr. Muradian,
At the moment I am in Crimea where I am doing research with colleagues
for a large program, so I am not up to date on the range of problems
that you mentioned.
Besides, I do not consider myself an expert on these issues, I'm in
this topic only to the extent that my colleagues from the Center are
dealing with them.
Nevertheless, I fully share your concerns.
Please accept assurances of my highest consideration.
Best regards
AA
Dmitri Trenin, Doctor of History, director of the Carnegie Moscow
Center
Dear Mr. Mouradian!
Thank you for your interest.
Your questions could be answered as follows.
1. In the arms trade the commercial interest is closely interwoven
with the geopolitical one. Russia is not an exception. Of course,
Moscow is making money by supplying military equipment to Baku
which otherwise could get it from other sources. At the same time,
the Russian Fefderation is also seeking to retain some influence on
Azerbaijan. This is not about maintaining the balance of forces between
Armenia and Azerbaijan for the sake of balance but the possibility
to influence the situation.
2. In my opinion, allied commitments of Russia to Armenia are firm.
Russia guarantees the borders of Armenia and has stationed its military
base in the Armenian territory. In addition, it equips Armenia at a
discounted (allied) price. Of course, any alliance is based on mutual
commitments. This should be considered in the new situation that has
arisen after the beginning of Ukrainian crisis.
3. According to my forecast, a full-scale war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is now unlikely. Importantly, such a war is not wanted by
foreign actors - Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States.
4. In Armenia, of course, you are free to criticize the Russian
policy, any prohibition is meaningless. You can criticize Russia for
its behavior. A serious approach, however, should take into account
two factors. First, Russia and the U.S./West have just entered
into a new period of relations of acute rivalry with elements of
confrontation which had not been the case since the "Cold War" 25
years ago. Secondly, Russia objectively remains the only strategic
ally of Armenia. If someone in Armenia wants to change their ally,
they should carefully weigh it. Is the proposed replacement reliable?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a loss? What are
the consequences of Armenia's movement from among Russian allies into
the list of countries associated with its rivals? I will stress once
again that alliance is something mutual, as Americans keep repeating
to Europeans.
All the best,
DT
Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in- Chief of the Russia In A Globalized
World Magazine
According to its commitments to Armenia under the alliance, Russia
must defend Armenia in case of external aggression. And there is no
reason to think that Russia is not ready to carry out its commitments,
no matter where threats come. This does not mean that Russia has no
other interests in the region except for those relating to Yerevan.
Azerbaijan - is too important a country in many aspecys for Russia
is to wave a hand on it and make no efforts to build relations with it.
Supply of arms always has a commercial component, there no country
produces arms which would not want to earn some money. Russia proceeds
from the fact that stability of the Armenian-Azerbaijani segment of the
South Caucasus is based on the balance of forces, it ensures mutual
deterrence. The factor of containment on the side of Armenia is the
very existence of the Russian base and Russia's commitments under
bilateral agreements and CSTO. For its part, supply of arms to both
sides of the conflict in the absence of war are key to non-change of
the status quo. These supplies do not increase the risk of war until
parity of opportunities is maintained for the sides.
Yuri Beteev, South Ossetia
Hello, Igor!
I think Russia will not do so that would be bad for Armenia. Supply of
arms - is a kind of pressure on Armenia to join the Eurasian Economic
Union and so on. Under Putin the Russian Federation will never give
up on Armenia and, at the same time, wants to maintain relations
with Azerbaijan.
Sincerely,
Beteev Yuri
Owner of the website Osinform
Fedor Voitolovsky, Candidate of Sciences, Institute of International
Relations and World Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Dear Professor Mouradian!
I am absolutely incompetent in this field. Never dealt with the
region. Honestly, as an amateur, I could say this policy of Russian
defense export is short-sighted, taking into account the continuing
tension in the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the situation in
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the dynamics of the Azerbaijani military
spending. Armenia is a a reliable friend and ally to Russia, and
Azerbaijan is a partner in economic cooperation. This is definitely
a different status. And I think that we should be attentive to such
sensitive issues of concern to our friends and allies. I'll try to
comment on it in some publications and talk to my colleagues Mukhanov
and Volkhonsky of the Center for Caucasian Studies at Moscow State
University of International Relations.
I do not know how useful my my answer has been to you. Always happy
to get your messages.
Sincerely,
Fedor
Alexander Skakov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of Oriental
Studies
Igor, good afternoon!
As far as I understand, currently deals on supply of arms made 3-5
years ago are being implemented. Under President Medvedev, as you know,
there was a sort of bias of the Kremlin towards Baku.
Termination of the deal requires very serious reasons and heavy
penalty. An example is the long negotiations with Iran following breach
of the Moscow deal. Now, as far as I know, there are no new contracts,
there is a talk on their possibility. For example, on coast guard
systems. It is unlikely that such systems may threaten the security
of Armenia. As to the mediators, in the arms race in the Caucasus
involving all mediators (the West through mediaors, as far as I know,
plus the provision of technology, and do you believe that Israel is
not the Western community?), even potential ones. It would be better,
of course, to refrain from this and impose a moratorium on supply of
arms to the region. But since all minds are captured by the idea of
the zero-sum game, such a scenario is, unfortunately, unrealistic.
Here you are, if briefly.
Regards,
Alexander
Alexei Arbatov, Director of the Security Program of Institute of
World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy
of Sciences
Dear Mr. Muradian
You asked too many questions. I will answer all in short. I believe
that the Russian military hardware supplies to Azerbaijan should be
strictly limited in scope and nomenclature. Armenia is our faithful
ally in CSTO and other organizations, and we have to have its security
as a cornerstone of our policy on the South Caucasus.
A.Arbatov
Azhdar Kurtov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Russian Institute for
Strategic Studies
Dear colleague!
First, I would like to apologize for late reply. The point is that your
message was sent to the mailbox of the Secretary of the journal, and
she was out of office for some time. Unfortunately, I can not do your
request. No offense but you are asking me (rightly) very "sensitive"
questions. I do not like the Russian policy in this respect but I
would not like to to comment on it publicly and criticize it all the
more so, for reasons that are known to you. Once again I am sorry.
Sincerely,
Azhdar Kurtov
Alexander Hramchihin, Institute of Military Studies
Hello, dear Mr. Mouradian!
Frankly speaking, I have not heard statements about maintaining
the balance of forces in such a context from Russian officials. As
to commercial interest, I believe it really is the main motivation
reinforced by another motivation: "If we do not sell, others will do."
This thesis itself is questionable from every point of view but is
very popular. Of course, such supplies have very little to do with
the alliance with Armenia. It is more than obvious that these supplies
significantly boost the risk of war in the Caucasus.
What is a "security guarantee", I do not really understand this,
especially given the variety of conflicts in the Caucasus. How
can Russia guarantee security to all the parties of the conflict,
especially that it is involved in some of them?
Of course, Armenia has the right to express dissatisfaction with the
policy of Russia. However, I very much hope that Armenia can still be
guided by facts, not ideological cliches and chimeras. I think that
the examples of Georgia and Ukraine are enough to understand that NATO
will not provide any assistance to countries that did not belong to
the alliance under any circumstances. Moreover, there is no confidence
that it will help even its member states. Also, I hope it is clear to
what extent NATO has degraded in purely military terms. The alliance
will not wage any war in which it may incur significant losses in any
way. Accordingly, facing NATO is possible only in case of complete and
absolute loss of the sense of reality (not to say completely mad). It
is impossible not to see that Russia always supports its allies,
including direct military assistance (South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
Syria, Crimea). I write this not because I am a citizen of Russia
but because it is a fact. Accordingly, Armenia has every right to be
offended by Russia for arms supplies to Azerbaijan but if Armenians
have the basic survival instinct, they have to hold on to an alliance
with Russia and forget about the NATO bubble.
Here you are! I am seriously ready to help Armenia because I think
it is a very important ally of Russia's. And I really want Armenians,
as well as Russians to see the facts, not propaganda cliches.
Irina Pashkovskaya, Doctor of Sciences, Moscow State University of
International Relations
Dear Mr. Mouradian!
Unfortunately, I cannot really answer your question because I am not
specializing on the issues that interest you.
Usually goods are sold to the person who can buy it.
Today one cannot envy Armenia's financial situation. A pensioner who
has worked all his like gets a pension less than one hundred dollars.
Armenia does not have mineral resources which would bring welfare. The
only way is intellectual activities, the creation of new technologies
and techniques that will be in demand worldwide.
The song goes "the impossible is possible."
Sincerely,
Irina Pashkovskaya
Sergei Samuilov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and
Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences
Dear Mr. I. Muradian, I will try to answer some of your questions
briefly.
I think supply of modern Russian arms (the S-300, T-90 tanks, etc.) to
Baku even at international prices is a bad foreign political mistake
of the Russian authorities. Unfortunately, Russia today lacks a
national political elite, it has inherited from the Soviet Union
an internationalist and bolshevist (first of all, in ethnic terms)
political leadership that does not identify itself with the Russian
people, nor with the Orthodox world (otherwise, the Russian troops
would have already been deployed in Lugansk and Donetsk regions to
suppress the genocide of Russians from Kiev). Putin is a Russified
German (hence millers and grefs in his entourage) and has recently
admitted publicly that there are Jews and Ukrainians in his entourage
against whom the Americans have imposed sanctions.
Hence, a more or less equal treatment of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the
settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. A nation-centered
Russian leadership of Russia would, of course, prefer in this case
Orthodox Armenia. Especially that all the former soviet Caucasian
republics only Armenia remained faithful to Russia in difficult times
when the Soviet Union collapsed, according to a known Russian proverb
"a friend is known in trouble."
Today the Russian Federation is slowly but steadily dragged into an
armed confrontation with Kiev, I do not believe that Poroshenko will
agree to end the civil war. Kiev will go for it only if human losses go
beyond acceptable. In this situation, a new war between Azerbaijan and
Armenia in the Caucasus would be too much for Russia. And Russian arms
supply to Baku increased the temptation to solve the Karabakh conflict
by force. Armenia has the right to express its dissatisfaction with
regard to these supplies. But it should act carefully. For example,
first it should carry out an information campaign in the Armenian
media on this matter, and the Russian embassy will certainly inform
Moscow, then plug in the powerful Armenian lobby in Moscow, and as a
last thing, involve politicians and act through official channels. I
hope it will not get worse.
Sergei Mikhailovich Samuylov
Yana Amelina, Candidate of Sciences, Russian Institute for Strategic
Studies
Dear Igor!
Any country, and Russia is no exception, is guided by a lot of things
in its foreign policy (and domestic too). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
the U.S. and the Moon have the right to discuss, welcome, support,
condemn, hate it. Our world is moving to its end, and I think we should
think for our souls, not short-term tactical matters of importance and
so transient, only for this life. We pay much, even too much attention
to trifles, this is the task of the enemy to destroy the human race
or rather destroy us. Do not need to give in to his tricks! I think so.
All the best, Ian
I'm in a good mood.
But honestly, I'm not interested in discussing the same thing for the
twentieth time (this is really my opinion, I am not kidding. Politics
is nonsense. If we had come to the Last Judgment with it, we'd
look pale).
Sincerely, Yana
V.I. Batiuk, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada
Dear Mr. Muradian,
I have to say at once that I am not an expert on military and political
problems of the South Caucasus, and so I can hardly give a full and
comprehensive answer to your question. Nevertheless, I will try to
the best of my ability and knowledge to answer them in order.
1. Allied relations do not mean the Allies give up their independence
in foreign policy. Neither the Russian-Armenian Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance of 29 August 1997, nor other
bilateral agreements and arrangements provide for prohibition of
Yerevan and Moscow to have foreign economic relations with anyone else,
including in defense technology. At the same time, the Armenian side
has the right to express their opinions, including negative about
these actions by the Russian side.
2. Of course, sale of Russian arms to Azerbaijan will not "unleash a
full-scale war". According to authoritative foreign military experts,
Armenia and Azerbaijan simply are not ready for such a war (see The
Military Balance. London: International Institute of Strategic Studies,
2014, pages 169-173).
3. From Moscow's point of view, having contacts and relations with
the South Caucasus, including in defense technology will contribute
to strengthening Russian positions in the region.
4. Though sales of air defense equipment of NATO member states to
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not much, nevertheless the U.S. and NATO
support intensive military relations with these countries of the South
Caucasus in the framework of their individual partnership plans with
the North Atlantic Alliance. Military cooperation between Washington,
Brussels and Baku takes place within different programs, including
the Caspian Guard. On the other hand, Brussels commends cooperation
between Armenia and NATO in military education and development of
professional NCOs.
Sincerely,
VI Batiuk,
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada
Would it be correct to comment on expert opinions? Correctness in this
case may mean that only a third of the experts whom we had approached
participated in the interviews. But this fact is also remarkable,
as the same experts agreed to express their opinion on other issues
much more willingly.
Received assessment, in general, reveal that Moscow experts cannot
offer unambiguous assessments but they understand that arms supplies
to Azerbaijan is not in line with the interests of Russia and will
cause problems in the nearest future. Of course, some cynicism is
found in their responses but the experts are well aware that betrayal
of a partner will lead to unpleasant consequences anyway.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32580#sthash.6cGN0Ow4.dpuf
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Thursday, 12 June 2014, 16:45
We initiated an interview on Russian arms supplies to Azerbaijan
with Moscow's leading experts with which we have been acquainted
for a long time and often communicate on political issues. Usually
about 40-45 political scientists, analysts and researchers dealing
with Euro-Atlantic structures, American, European and Middle Eastern
affairs, the problems of Turkey and Iran, as well as China recently
are involved in this communication.
Usually 22 people from leading research institutes in Moscow are
involved in our interviews on the Black Sea-Caucasus region. I must
say that rarely is anyone reluctant to participate in an interview.
But this subject proved sensitive and difficult for many. This can
be understood, and we provide below only the answers of those experts
who either answered the questions, or explained more or less in detail
why they did not want to be interviewed.
The same questions were asked to all the experts. May I ask you to
answer the following questions which do interest people in Armenia?
As is known, Russia continues to supply modern weapons to Azerbaijan,
which does affect the balance of forces in the latter's favor. If
earlier the representatives of Russia stated that these supplies
are part of a plan to keep the balance of forces, now the Russian
Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volinkin says that it is only about
commercial interests. How would you assess Russia's policy? Is it in
line with its commitments to Armenia under the partnership agreement,
will it lead to the outbreak of a full-scale war, what could be the
results of the position of Russia in the South Caucasus; does Armenia
have the right to object to and condemn the policy of Russia; can
Russia, participating in an arms race in the South Caucasus, be seen
as the guarantor of security in the region (if we bear in mind that
Western society does not deliver weapons to Armenia and Azerbaijan)?
You will do us a great favor by sharing your opinions on these or
some of these questions.
Igor Muradian (Analytical website www.lragir.am)
Yazkova Alla Alekseyevna, Doctor of History, Director of the Black
Sea-Mediterranean program, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy
of Sciences
Dear Igor Maratovich,
Have not heard of you for ages. Your questions addressed to us (me and
Prof. Gromyko) in your letters and your interest in the problems of
extremely topical regional relations in the South Caucasus are quite
clear. As an academic institution, the Institute of Europe and the
division headed by me certainly examines the status and changes in
the balance of forces in the South Caucasus region, and we publish the
results of our research in scientific journals and in the press. I do
not know if you are familiar with my article about the South Caucasus
in one of the last issues of the Modern Europe. But we don't think we
have the right to go public on Russia's position, especially Armenia.
Unfortunately, that our and your financial difficulties do not allow
us to meet more often and exchange views and positions.
Alla Alekseyevna
Alikber Alikberov, director of the Center for Central Asia, the
Caucasus and the Volga-Ural Institute of Oriental Studies
Dear Mr. Muradian,
At the moment I am in Crimea where I am doing research with colleagues
for a large program, so I am not up to date on the range of problems
that you mentioned.
Besides, I do not consider myself an expert on these issues, I'm in
this topic only to the extent that my colleagues from the Center are
dealing with them.
Nevertheless, I fully share your concerns.
Please accept assurances of my highest consideration.
Best regards
AA
Dmitri Trenin, Doctor of History, director of the Carnegie Moscow
Center
Dear Mr. Mouradian!
Thank you for your interest.
Your questions could be answered as follows.
1. In the arms trade the commercial interest is closely interwoven
with the geopolitical one. Russia is not an exception. Of course,
Moscow is making money by supplying military equipment to Baku
which otherwise could get it from other sources. At the same time,
the Russian Fefderation is also seeking to retain some influence on
Azerbaijan. This is not about maintaining the balance of forces between
Armenia and Azerbaijan for the sake of balance but the possibility
to influence the situation.
2. In my opinion, allied commitments of Russia to Armenia are firm.
Russia guarantees the borders of Armenia and has stationed its military
base in the Armenian territory. In addition, it equips Armenia at a
discounted (allied) price. Of course, any alliance is based on mutual
commitments. This should be considered in the new situation that has
arisen after the beginning of Ukrainian crisis.
3. According to my forecast, a full-scale war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is now unlikely. Importantly, such a war is not wanted by
foreign actors - Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States.
4. In Armenia, of course, you are free to criticize the Russian
policy, any prohibition is meaningless. You can criticize Russia for
its behavior. A serious approach, however, should take into account
two factors. First, Russia and the U.S./West have just entered
into a new period of relations of acute rivalry with elements of
confrontation which had not been the case since the "Cold War" 25
years ago. Secondly, Russia objectively remains the only strategic
ally of Armenia. If someone in Armenia wants to change their ally,
they should carefully weigh it. Is the proposed replacement reliable?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a loss? What are
the consequences of Armenia's movement from among Russian allies into
the list of countries associated with its rivals? I will stress once
again that alliance is something mutual, as Americans keep repeating
to Europeans.
All the best,
DT
Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in- Chief of the Russia In A Globalized
World Magazine
According to its commitments to Armenia under the alliance, Russia
must defend Armenia in case of external aggression. And there is no
reason to think that Russia is not ready to carry out its commitments,
no matter where threats come. This does not mean that Russia has no
other interests in the region except for those relating to Yerevan.
Azerbaijan - is too important a country in many aspecys for Russia
is to wave a hand on it and make no efforts to build relations with it.
Supply of arms always has a commercial component, there no country
produces arms which would not want to earn some money. Russia proceeds
from the fact that stability of the Armenian-Azerbaijani segment of the
South Caucasus is based on the balance of forces, it ensures mutual
deterrence. The factor of containment on the side of Armenia is the
very existence of the Russian base and Russia's commitments under
bilateral agreements and CSTO. For its part, supply of arms to both
sides of the conflict in the absence of war are key to non-change of
the status quo. These supplies do not increase the risk of war until
parity of opportunities is maintained for the sides.
Yuri Beteev, South Ossetia
Hello, Igor!
I think Russia will not do so that would be bad for Armenia. Supply of
arms - is a kind of pressure on Armenia to join the Eurasian Economic
Union and so on. Under Putin the Russian Federation will never give
up on Armenia and, at the same time, wants to maintain relations
with Azerbaijan.
Sincerely,
Beteev Yuri
Owner of the website Osinform
Fedor Voitolovsky, Candidate of Sciences, Institute of International
Relations and World Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Dear Professor Mouradian!
I am absolutely incompetent in this field. Never dealt with the
region. Honestly, as an amateur, I could say this policy of Russian
defense export is short-sighted, taking into account the continuing
tension in the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the situation in
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the dynamics of the Azerbaijani military
spending. Armenia is a a reliable friend and ally to Russia, and
Azerbaijan is a partner in economic cooperation. This is definitely
a different status. And I think that we should be attentive to such
sensitive issues of concern to our friends and allies. I'll try to
comment on it in some publications and talk to my colleagues Mukhanov
and Volkhonsky of the Center for Caucasian Studies at Moscow State
University of International Relations.
I do not know how useful my my answer has been to you. Always happy
to get your messages.
Sincerely,
Fedor
Alexander Skakov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of Oriental
Studies
Igor, good afternoon!
As far as I understand, currently deals on supply of arms made 3-5
years ago are being implemented. Under President Medvedev, as you know,
there was a sort of bias of the Kremlin towards Baku.
Termination of the deal requires very serious reasons and heavy
penalty. An example is the long negotiations with Iran following breach
of the Moscow deal. Now, as far as I know, there are no new contracts,
there is a talk on their possibility. For example, on coast guard
systems. It is unlikely that such systems may threaten the security
of Armenia. As to the mediators, in the arms race in the Caucasus
involving all mediators (the West through mediaors, as far as I know,
plus the provision of technology, and do you believe that Israel is
not the Western community?), even potential ones. It would be better,
of course, to refrain from this and impose a moratorium on supply of
arms to the region. But since all minds are captured by the idea of
the zero-sum game, such a scenario is, unfortunately, unrealistic.
Here you are, if briefly.
Regards,
Alexander
Alexei Arbatov, Director of the Security Program of Institute of
World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy
of Sciences
Dear Mr. Muradian
You asked too many questions. I will answer all in short. I believe
that the Russian military hardware supplies to Azerbaijan should be
strictly limited in scope and nomenclature. Armenia is our faithful
ally in CSTO and other organizations, and we have to have its security
as a cornerstone of our policy on the South Caucasus.
A.Arbatov
Azhdar Kurtov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Russian Institute for
Strategic Studies
Dear colleague!
First, I would like to apologize for late reply. The point is that your
message was sent to the mailbox of the Secretary of the journal, and
she was out of office for some time. Unfortunately, I can not do your
request. No offense but you are asking me (rightly) very "sensitive"
questions. I do not like the Russian policy in this respect but I
would not like to to comment on it publicly and criticize it all the
more so, for reasons that are known to you. Once again I am sorry.
Sincerely,
Azhdar Kurtov
Alexander Hramchihin, Institute of Military Studies
Hello, dear Mr. Mouradian!
Frankly speaking, I have not heard statements about maintaining
the balance of forces in such a context from Russian officials. As
to commercial interest, I believe it really is the main motivation
reinforced by another motivation: "If we do not sell, others will do."
This thesis itself is questionable from every point of view but is
very popular. Of course, such supplies have very little to do with
the alliance with Armenia. It is more than obvious that these supplies
significantly boost the risk of war in the Caucasus.
What is a "security guarantee", I do not really understand this,
especially given the variety of conflicts in the Caucasus. How
can Russia guarantee security to all the parties of the conflict,
especially that it is involved in some of them?
Of course, Armenia has the right to express dissatisfaction with the
policy of Russia. However, I very much hope that Armenia can still be
guided by facts, not ideological cliches and chimeras. I think that
the examples of Georgia and Ukraine are enough to understand that NATO
will not provide any assistance to countries that did not belong to
the alliance under any circumstances. Moreover, there is no confidence
that it will help even its member states. Also, I hope it is clear to
what extent NATO has degraded in purely military terms. The alliance
will not wage any war in which it may incur significant losses in any
way. Accordingly, facing NATO is possible only in case of complete and
absolute loss of the sense of reality (not to say completely mad). It
is impossible not to see that Russia always supports its allies,
including direct military assistance (South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
Syria, Crimea). I write this not because I am a citizen of Russia
but because it is a fact. Accordingly, Armenia has every right to be
offended by Russia for arms supplies to Azerbaijan but if Armenians
have the basic survival instinct, they have to hold on to an alliance
with Russia and forget about the NATO bubble.
Here you are! I am seriously ready to help Armenia because I think
it is a very important ally of Russia's. And I really want Armenians,
as well as Russians to see the facts, not propaganda cliches.
Irina Pashkovskaya, Doctor of Sciences, Moscow State University of
International Relations
Dear Mr. Mouradian!
Unfortunately, I cannot really answer your question because I am not
specializing on the issues that interest you.
Usually goods are sold to the person who can buy it.
Today one cannot envy Armenia's financial situation. A pensioner who
has worked all his like gets a pension less than one hundred dollars.
Armenia does not have mineral resources which would bring welfare. The
only way is intellectual activities, the creation of new technologies
and techniques that will be in demand worldwide.
The song goes "the impossible is possible."
Sincerely,
Irina Pashkovskaya
Sergei Samuilov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and
Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences
Dear Mr. I. Muradian, I will try to answer some of your questions
briefly.
I think supply of modern Russian arms (the S-300, T-90 tanks, etc.) to
Baku even at international prices is a bad foreign political mistake
of the Russian authorities. Unfortunately, Russia today lacks a
national political elite, it has inherited from the Soviet Union
an internationalist and bolshevist (first of all, in ethnic terms)
political leadership that does not identify itself with the Russian
people, nor with the Orthodox world (otherwise, the Russian troops
would have already been deployed in Lugansk and Donetsk regions to
suppress the genocide of Russians from Kiev). Putin is a Russified
German (hence millers and grefs in his entourage) and has recently
admitted publicly that there are Jews and Ukrainians in his entourage
against whom the Americans have imposed sanctions.
Hence, a more or less equal treatment of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the
settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. A nation-centered
Russian leadership of Russia would, of course, prefer in this case
Orthodox Armenia. Especially that all the former soviet Caucasian
republics only Armenia remained faithful to Russia in difficult times
when the Soviet Union collapsed, according to a known Russian proverb
"a friend is known in trouble."
Today the Russian Federation is slowly but steadily dragged into an
armed confrontation with Kiev, I do not believe that Poroshenko will
agree to end the civil war. Kiev will go for it only if human losses go
beyond acceptable. In this situation, a new war between Azerbaijan and
Armenia in the Caucasus would be too much for Russia. And Russian arms
supply to Baku increased the temptation to solve the Karabakh conflict
by force. Armenia has the right to express its dissatisfaction with
regard to these supplies. But it should act carefully. For example,
first it should carry out an information campaign in the Armenian
media on this matter, and the Russian embassy will certainly inform
Moscow, then plug in the powerful Armenian lobby in Moscow, and as a
last thing, involve politicians and act through official channels. I
hope it will not get worse.
Sergei Mikhailovich Samuylov
Yana Amelina, Candidate of Sciences, Russian Institute for Strategic
Studies
Dear Igor!
Any country, and Russia is no exception, is guided by a lot of things
in its foreign policy (and domestic too). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
the U.S. and the Moon have the right to discuss, welcome, support,
condemn, hate it. Our world is moving to its end, and I think we should
think for our souls, not short-term tactical matters of importance and
so transient, only for this life. We pay much, even too much attention
to trifles, this is the task of the enemy to destroy the human race
or rather destroy us. Do not need to give in to his tricks! I think so.
All the best, Ian
I'm in a good mood.
But honestly, I'm not interested in discussing the same thing for the
twentieth time (this is really my opinion, I am not kidding. Politics
is nonsense. If we had come to the Last Judgment with it, we'd
look pale).
Sincerely, Yana
V.I. Batiuk, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada
Dear Mr. Muradian,
I have to say at once that I am not an expert on military and political
problems of the South Caucasus, and so I can hardly give a full and
comprehensive answer to your question. Nevertheless, I will try to
the best of my ability and knowledge to answer them in order.
1. Allied relations do not mean the Allies give up their independence
in foreign policy. Neither the Russian-Armenian Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance of 29 August 1997, nor other
bilateral agreements and arrangements provide for prohibition of
Yerevan and Moscow to have foreign economic relations with anyone else,
including in defense technology. At the same time, the Armenian side
has the right to express their opinions, including negative about
these actions by the Russian side.
2. Of course, sale of Russian arms to Azerbaijan will not "unleash a
full-scale war". According to authoritative foreign military experts,
Armenia and Azerbaijan simply are not ready for such a war (see The
Military Balance. London: International Institute of Strategic Studies,
2014, pages 169-173).
3. From Moscow's point of view, having contacts and relations with
the South Caucasus, including in defense technology will contribute
to strengthening Russian positions in the region.
4. Though sales of air defense equipment of NATO member states to
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not much, nevertheless the U.S. and NATO
support intensive military relations with these countries of the South
Caucasus in the framework of their individual partnership plans with
the North Atlantic Alliance. Military cooperation between Washington,
Brussels and Baku takes place within different programs, including
the Caspian Guard. On the other hand, Brussels commends cooperation
between Armenia and NATO in military education and development of
professional NCOs.
Sincerely,
VI Batiuk,
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada
Would it be correct to comment on expert opinions? Correctness in this
case may mean that only a third of the experts whom we had approached
participated in the interviews. But this fact is also remarkable,
as the same experts agreed to express their opinion on other issues
much more willingly.
Received assessment, in general, reveal that Moscow experts cannot
offer unambiguous assessments but they understand that arms supplies
to Azerbaijan is not in line with the interests of Russia and will
cause problems in the nearest future. Of course, some cynicism is
found in their responses but the experts are well aware that betrayal
of a partner will lead to unpleasant consequences anyway.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32580#sthash.6cGN0Ow4.dpuf