Tweet
"Localization" of War: Who Do They Think in Moscow?
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 28 January 2015, 13:32
The Minsk Group Co-Chairs Called on Azerbaijan to Observe its
Commitments to a Peaceful Resolution of the Conflict
OSCE Chairperson-in-Office DaÄ?iÄ? voices concern over recent
developments on Armenian-Azerbaijani border and Line of Contact
Seiran Ohanyan: Peace Requires Confidence Building
Azerbaijan Filled with Panic
Conclusion of Forensic Examination of Karen Petrosyan Has Been Received
Cooperation of any country of Eastern Europe and Central Asia with
NATO and the United States has an anti-Russian vector, and Moscow
perceives it this way.
The present problems have occurred recently, some experts think they
have always existed but now they have become more tangible and acute
due to the rapprochement between NATO and Armenia.
The content of NATO-Armenia relations is not inferior to NATO-Georgia
relations, for example. The NATO-Georgia topic has become more common
in the strategic context, hence it is hardly possible to `blackmail'
Russia with the Georgian topic. Armenia is a `fresh' topic that has
not been elaborated. Therefore, Armenia is currently seen as an
important lever of pressure on Russia, to thwart Russia's attempts at
the strategic level.
The opportunities to combine cooperation with NATO and CSTO are
categorically rejected, though in this case it causes doubts and
expresses the position of not only the Russian political leadership
but also the military command and military circles.
In answer to the question how Russia perceives Armenia's willingness
to cooperate with NATO the Russian experts suggested the following:
- Armenia would like to get assistance from Russia and NATO simultaneously;
- Russian foreign policy on Azerbaijan and Turkey causes doubts in
Armenia, which is wrong and is explained by the lack of political
experience of Armenian leaders;
- If formerly NATO-Armenia relations were `under control' and were
understood by Moscow, now these relations have crossed the line, which
is evidence to Armenia's involvement in NATOs' strategic plans;
- Armenia has no real guarantee of security from NATO and will not get
that guarantee, at least in the format which would allow expecting
military assistance in case of a military conflict.
In answer to the question how `normal' it is for Russia to supply
weapons to Azerbaijan, they state clearly: it's normal. In addition,
arguments are brought, such as otherwise Azerbaijan will buy weapons
from other countries, and military technical cooperation with Armenia
is quite successful.
Then what attitude would Russia have to the supply of weapons to
Armenia by NATO member states? Russia knows about these intentions, it
is Armenia's sovereign affair but these supplies will hardly be
large-scale and comprehensive, experts think.
At the same time, the Russian leadership has expressed its negative
attitude to this, questioning military technical cooperation with
Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, this opinion has not been taken into
account, explaining that the ministry of defense needs money and this
money is raised from export of weapons. This also causes doubts but
such is the decision of the political leadership.
In this situation Armenia must take care of its military potential and
may hope for Russia's assistance which is not interested in weakening
of Armenia and change of balance of forces in the region in prejudice
of Armenia, experts say.
Parity in relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan does not mean equal
relations, it is impossible in both political and strategic terms. The
geopolitical setting in the region is quite different, and Armenia
remains the only military partner.
Do the Russian experts consider the Russian-Armenian relations as
strategic? The notion `strategic' is not legal, it is figurative
rather. Important agreements have been signed and are implemented
between Russia and Armenia, and they need to be amended with new
content instead of considerations how to describe these relations as
strategic.
The opinion on `localization' of the war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is interesting. These arguments cause doubts but they do
express Russia's stance and policy.
By supplying weapons to Azerbaijan Russia is trying to set framework
conditions, namely limitation of possible military actions by
Azerbaijan. Localization of military actions within the area of the
Karabakh conflict and not shifting it to the territory of Armenia is
taken into account.
Hence, Russia intends to create a wall between itself and a possible
military conflict. The Russian political leadership rules out Russia's
involvement in regional military conflicts, and it concerns not only
the South Caucasus but also Central Asia.
To what extent is Russia conducting a policy of `localization' of
possible conflicts with regard to Turkey? With regard to risk
assessment and attitude to conflicts broader relations have formed
between Russia and Turkey. Russia has Turkey's perception on a
possible Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in terms of unacceptability of a
military solution of the issue.
At the same time, it is assumed that resumption of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is seen as the result of large scale and
serious movement of policies of foreign parties on the region. Despite
immense procurement of weapons, Azerbaijan is not ready for a modern
war, and the great powers, including Turkey, are trying to explain
this.
Turkey's military objectives relating to Azerbaijan are aimed at
prevention of bigger military conflicts than the Karabakh conflict in
which Turkey may be involved.
What is the cause of irritation of the Russian political leadership on
Armenia, Armenia's aspiration to cooperate with the Euro-Atlantic
community, the reserved attitude towards the Eurasian project,
Armenia's domestic problems? Experts find that rapprochement with NATO
and the EU has a key role in lack of confidence. Nevertheless, it is
impossible to ignore the Eurasian project in strategic terms.
This is personal insult because this initiative is personally Putin's
initiative. Besides, the intactness of Russia's positions abroad is
linked to the Eurasian project.
The western bloc of states is trying to prevent recovery of Russia's
influence in the post-Soviet space, and rejecting the Eurasian project
may be considered as unfriendly policy on Russia in terms of its
strategic interests.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33541#sthash.LamlhLjY.dpuf
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 28 January 2015, 13:32
The Minsk Group Co-Chairs Called on Azerbaijan to Observe its
Commitments to a Peaceful Resolution of the Conflict
OSCE Chairperson-in-Office DaÄ?iÄ? voices concern over recent
developments on Armenian-Azerbaijani border and Line of Contact
Seiran Ohanyan: Peace Requires Confidence Building
Azerbaijan Filled with Panic
Conclusion of Forensic Examination of Karen Petrosyan Has Been Received
Cooperation of any country of Eastern Europe and Central Asia with
NATO and the United States has an anti-Russian vector, and Moscow
perceives it this way.
The present problems have occurred recently, some experts think they
have always existed but now they have become more tangible and acute
due to the rapprochement between NATO and Armenia.
The content of NATO-Armenia relations is not inferior to NATO-Georgia
relations, for example. The NATO-Georgia topic has become more common
in the strategic context, hence it is hardly possible to `blackmail'
Russia with the Georgian topic. Armenia is a `fresh' topic that has
not been elaborated. Therefore, Armenia is currently seen as an
important lever of pressure on Russia, to thwart Russia's attempts at
the strategic level.
The opportunities to combine cooperation with NATO and CSTO are
categorically rejected, though in this case it causes doubts and
expresses the position of not only the Russian political leadership
but also the military command and military circles.
In answer to the question how Russia perceives Armenia's willingness
to cooperate with NATO the Russian experts suggested the following:
- Armenia would like to get assistance from Russia and NATO simultaneously;
- Russian foreign policy on Azerbaijan and Turkey causes doubts in
Armenia, which is wrong and is explained by the lack of political
experience of Armenian leaders;
- If formerly NATO-Armenia relations were `under control' and were
understood by Moscow, now these relations have crossed the line, which
is evidence to Armenia's involvement in NATOs' strategic plans;
- Armenia has no real guarantee of security from NATO and will not get
that guarantee, at least in the format which would allow expecting
military assistance in case of a military conflict.
In answer to the question how `normal' it is for Russia to supply
weapons to Azerbaijan, they state clearly: it's normal. In addition,
arguments are brought, such as otherwise Azerbaijan will buy weapons
from other countries, and military technical cooperation with Armenia
is quite successful.
Then what attitude would Russia have to the supply of weapons to
Armenia by NATO member states? Russia knows about these intentions, it
is Armenia's sovereign affair but these supplies will hardly be
large-scale and comprehensive, experts think.
At the same time, the Russian leadership has expressed its negative
attitude to this, questioning military technical cooperation with
Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, this opinion has not been taken into
account, explaining that the ministry of defense needs money and this
money is raised from export of weapons. This also causes doubts but
such is the decision of the political leadership.
In this situation Armenia must take care of its military potential and
may hope for Russia's assistance which is not interested in weakening
of Armenia and change of balance of forces in the region in prejudice
of Armenia, experts say.
Parity in relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan does not mean equal
relations, it is impossible in both political and strategic terms. The
geopolitical setting in the region is quite different, and Armenia
remains the only military partner.
Do the Russian experts consider the Russian-Armenian relations as
strategic? The notion `strategic' is not legal, it is figurative
rather. Important agreements have been signed and are implemented
between Russia and Armenia, and they need to be amended with new
content instead of considerations how to describe these relations as
strategic.
The opinion on `localization' of the war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is interesting. These arguments cause doubts but they do
express Russia's stance and policy.
By supplying weapons to Azerbaijan Russia is trying to set framework
conditions, namely limitation of possible military actions by
Azerbaijan. Localization of military actions within the area of the
Karabakh conflict and not shifting it to the territory of Armenia is
taken into account.
Hence, Russia intends to create a wall between itself and a possible
military conflict. The Russian political leadership rules out Russia's
involvement in regional military conflicts, and it concerns not only
the South Caucasus but also Central Asia.
To what extent is Russia conducting a policy of `localization' of
possible conflicts with regard to Turkey? With regard to risk
assessment and attitude to conflicts broader relations have formed
between Russia and Turkey. Russia has Turkey's perception on a
possible Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in terms of unacceptability of a
military solution of the issue.
At the same time, it is assumed that resumption of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is seen as the result of large scale and
serious movement of policies of foreign parties on the region. Despite
immense procurement of weapons, Azerbaijan is not ready for a modern
war, and the great powers, including Turkey, are trying to explain
this.
Turkey's military objectives relating to Azerbaijan are aimed at
prevention of bigger military conflicts than the Karabakh conflict in
which Turkey may be involved.
What is the cause of irritation of the Russian political leadership on
Armenia, Armenia's aspiration to cooperate with the Euro-Atlantic
community, the reserved attitude towards the Eurasian project,
Armenia's domestic problems? Experts find that rapprochement with NATO
and the EU has a key role in lack of confidence. Nevertheless, it is
impossible to ignore the Eurasian project in strategic terms.
This is personal insult because this initiative is personally Putin's
initiative. Besides, the intactness of Russia's positions abroad is
linked to the Eurasian project.
The western bloc of states is trying to prevent recovery of Russia's
influence in the post-Soviet space, and rejecting the Eurasian project
may be considered as unfriendly policy on Russia in terms of its
strategic interests.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33541#sthash.LamlhLjY.dpuf