Tweet
ANDREY ARESHEV: KARABAKH-RELATED HUMANITARIAN INITIATIVES FROM RUSSIA COULD BE USEFUL
ArmInfo's interview with Andrey Areshev, editor-in-chief of the
website of the Scientific Society of Caucasiologists
by Ashot Safaryan
Thursday, April 2, 14:21
Mr. Areshev, president of Armenia has recently addressed the issue of
Russian arms deals with Azerbaijan calling it a problem that needs
to be settled. Do you think Armenia has any levers to influence the
situation? Would you comment on the president's statement on the
issue that had not been voiced at such high level before?
I don't think that this issue has not been voiced earlier, though,
over the past few days the topic of the arms supply has been voiced
more often, which is obviously explained by the escalated tension in
the Karabakh conflict zone. Official Baku has obviously got its own
reasons to exert constant pressure on the Armenian side and I think
that the "weapon" cooperation between Moscow and Baku is not a key
factor here. In this light, I would like to note that Moscow had
military and technical interaction with both Yerevan and Baku over
the previous years as well, however, the death toll on the frontline
has sharply risen within months.
I think the main solution to the problems is the political dialogue
between Russia and Armenia at the level of the Presidents, Governments,
Parliaments, and civil society structures. Much is still to be done
in this regard, though intensification of bilateral contacts is
evident. Of course, not everyone likes it.
One of the key motives of Armenia accessing the EEU was the security
component. However, tensions on the Karabakh-Azerbaijan Line of Contact
and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border escalated in January and keep
growing. This has become a bargaining card for the opponents of the
EEU. What do you think about it?
Armenia has recently been experiencing an alarming trend. The authors
of a number of publications are linking not only the security problems
but also the imbalances in the socio-economic development with the
fact of Armenia's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
However, those who think so obviously are playing cunning.
Those criticizing Armenia's EEU course suggest replacing the EEU
membership with a closer integration into the European "neighborhood
system" and the North-Atlantic security structures, which envisage
partnership with Turkey. However, the possible consequences are vivid
through the example of present-day Bulgaria at least.
I think it is quite obvious that the current security system in the
South Caucasus may change only in case the Armenian leadership adopts
a Karabakh problem resolution scheme that meets the logic of official
Baku. It is impossible to say that openly, this is why they invent
various kinds of unrealistic schemes.
Nevertheless, I am also concerned about the attempts to split the
Armenian society on political or any other grounds. This runs counter
to Russia's interests because it directly destabilizes the situation
in the region (even via "thawing" of the Karabakh conflict).
Russia will keep supporting Armenia both in the framework of bilateral
relations and in the process of adaptation to the EEU rules. In the
meantime, Armenia remains an independent state within the EEU and
contributes to formation of a favorable economic environment and
implementation of joints projects, even with the western, Chinese
and other investors.
Certainly, the participation in the macro-regional integration unions
implies delegation of a certain share of state sovereignty to the
supranational bodies (in the EEU to a small extent than in the EU,
by the way), but Russia is unlikely to need weak allies.
U.S. Department representatives call on Armenia to display a
"humanitarian gesture" and set free two Azerbaijani saboteurs. Do
you see there any preconditions for exerting pressure on Yerevan?
The United States as usually gives various signals that can be
interpreted as both support and pressure. All this is a method of
manipulation. Pressure on Yerevan and Stepanakert like on Baku will
continue through both 'soft' and tough methods depending on the
specifics of a problem and the country.
Russia is not an exception, by the way. However, in Russia they
realize that provoking the counteragent with ones own weakness is,
to put it mildly, not the best way to respond.
Don't you think Russia's stand too inert amid the upsurge in tension
in the conflict zone? Moscow could join the call for release of the
Azerbaijani raiders as a humanitarian gesture. Don't you think so?
It appears to me that Russia could make initiatives of humanitarian
nature that would at least partially stabilize the situation in the
conflict zone. It could be assistance in repatriation of captives
(I don't mean saboteurs and terrorists, indeed), improvement of the
ceasefire monitoring mechanisms and so on.
Maybe, Moscow's diplomatic efforts in the Caucasus are certainly
impeded by other challenges and the status of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chair that implies actions within certain frameworks. It is not
a secret that problems are intentionally created not only along our
borders, but also inside the country. Nevertheless, it is high time
for a more active stand in the Karabakh peace process, at least in
settlement of local problems.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=11E7B1F0-D922-11E4-98330EB7C0D21663
ArmInfo's interview with Andrey Areshev, editor-in-chief of the
website of the Scientific Society of Caucasiologists
by Ashot Safaryan
Thursday, April 2, 14:21
Mr. Areshev, president of Armenia has recently addressed the issue of
Russian arms deals with Azerbaijan calling it a problem that needs
to be settled. Do you think Armenia has any levers to influence the
situation? Would you comment on the president's statement on the
issue that had not been voiced at such high level before?
I don't think that this issue has not been voiced earlier, though,
over the past few days the topic of the arms supply has been voiced
more often, which is obviously explained by the escalated tension in
the Karabakh conflict zone. Official Baku has obviously got its own
reasons to exert constant pressure on the Armenian side and I think
that the "weapon" cooperation between Moscow and Baku is not a key
factor here. In this light, I would like to note that Moscow had
military and technical interaction with both Yerevan and Baku over
the previous years as well, however, the death toll on the frontline
has sharply risen within months.
I think the main solution to the problems is the political dialogue
between Russia and Armenia at the level of the Presidents, Governments,
Parliaments, and civil society structures. Much is still to be done
in this regard, though intensification of bilateral contacts is
evident. Of course, not everyone likes it.
One of the key motives of Armenia accessing the EEU was the security
component. However, tensions on the Karabakh-Azerbaijan Line of Contact
and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border escalated in January and keep
growing. This has become a bargaining card for the opponents of the
EEU. What do you think about it?
Armenia has recently been experiencing an alarming trend. The authors
of a number of publications are linking not only the security problems
but also the imbalances in the socio-economic development with the
fact of Armenia's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
However, those who think so obviously are playing cunning.
Those criticizing Armenia's EEU course suggest replacing the EEU
membership with a closer integration into the European "neighborhood
system" and the North-Atlantic security structures, which envisage
partnership with Turkey. However, the possible consequences are vivid
through the example of present-day Bulgaria at least.
I think it is quite obvious that the current security system in the
South Caucasus may change only in case the Armenian leadership adopts
a Karabakh problem resolution scheme that meets the logic of official
Baku. It is impossible to say that openly, this is why they invent
various kinds of unrealistic schemes.
Nevertheless, I am also concerned about the attempts to split the
Armenian society on political or any other grounds. This runs counter
to Russia's interests because it directly destabilizes the situation
in the region (even via "thawing" of the Karabakh conflict).
Russia will keep supporting Armenia both in the framework of bilateral
relations and in the process of adaptation to the EEU rules. In the
meantime, Armenia remains an independent state within the EEU and
contributes to formation of a favorable economic environment and
implementation of joints projects, even with the western, Chinese
and other investors.
Certainly, the participation in the macro-regional integration unions
implies delegation of a certain share of state sovereignty to the
supranational bodies (in the EEU to a small extent than in the EU,
by the way), but Russia is unlikely to need weak allies.
U.S. Department representatives call on Armenia to display a
"humanitarian gesture" and set free two Azerbaijani saboteurs. Do
you see there any preconditions for exerting pressure on Yerevan?
The United States as usually gives various signals that can be
interpreted as both support and pressure. All this is a method of
manipulation. Pressure on Yerevan and Stepanakert like on Baku will
continue through both 'soft' and tough methods depending on the
specifics of a problem and the country.
Russia is not an exception, by the way. However, in Russia they
realize that provoking the counteragent with ones own weakness is,
to put it mildly, not the best way to respond.
Don't you think Russia's stand too inert amid the upsurge in tension
in the conflict zone? Moscow could join the call for release of the
Azerbaijani raiders as a humanitarian gesture. Don't you think so?
It appears to me that Russia could make initiatives of humanitarian
nature that would at least partially stabilize the situation in the
conflict zone. It could be assistance in repatriation of captives
(I don't mean saboteurs and terrorists, indeed), improvement of the
ceasefire monitoring mechanisms and so on.
Maybe, Moscow's diplomatic efforts in the Caucasus are certainly
impeded by other challenges and the status of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chair that implies actions within certain frameworks. It is not
a secret that problems are intentionally created not only along our
borders, but also inside the country. Nevertheless, it is high time
for a more active stand in the Karabakh peace process, at least in
settlement of local problems.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=11E7B1F0-D922-11E4-98330EB7C0D21663