Azerbaijani political expert: Even Sargsyan understands that Armenia will have to retreat

Armenian President will discuss Karabakh conflict with Russian counterpart today. In your opinion, will Russia oppose Yerevan when it will be forced to make concessions in the conflict settlement?

Indeed, Russia is not a small geopolitical player in the region, and the events in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan proved this once again.

Today Armenia is experiencing tough economic situation. Judging from opinion of Armenian political scientists, we can assume that Armenia wants to find a way out of this. Russia is a key ally of Armenia, and it does not want Yerevan to change its course after Sargsyan’s recent visit to the U.S. On the other hand, Russia, although pioneered the Karabakh conflict, has altered its relations towards Baku and Moscow. Currently, Azerbaijan and Russia cooperate closely.

After all, Russia is Armenia’s ally and wants to pull it out of the swamp into which Armenia fell. Moscow cannot ignore Azerbaijan’s development in all respects and statements regarding Yerevan. We cannot tolerate a policy of double standards, and will take steps to resolve by force once we strengthen our army and economy to a sufficient extent. So, I think that even Sargsyan understands that Armenia will have to retreat from its positions, but he is afraid to do so fearing that he may be overthrown.

How do you assess the outcome of the Sargsyan-Erdogan meeting that took place in Washington a couple of days ago?

No doubt, Sargsyan’s trip to the United States had nothing to do with the theme of the international nuclear security conference. He tripped to the U.S. to discuss the opening of Turkish-Armenian border and the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

I think that those who believed that Washington will request Serzh Sargsyan to retreat from his positions and he will fly to Yerevan to urgently perform this request are strongly mistaken. The White House continues to please Yerevan. Based on policy of double standards and not putting pressure on the occupier state, Washington fails to understand that Azerbaijan’s patience is not unlimited.

So, there is direct and overt support to the occupier country. America wants to find a way out of conflict which would suit both Baku and Yerevan. But its impossible. Given this approach by co-chairing countries to the conflict and the fact that Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, has already agreed to an updated version of the Madrid principles, any enforcement actions by Azerbaijan will be appropriate.

As for Turkey, the position the country demonstrated at Washington meetings is a very positive fact for Azerbaijan. After the Zurich protocols were signed, Erdogan met with strong dissatisfaction from Baku, the Turkish parliament and also saw true face of Armenia which made amendments to the previously signed documents through the Constitutional Court.

Therefore, Turkey had to change its position on the Armenian issue. But, unfortunately, the U.S. puts pressure on Turkey in the issue of opening the Armenian-Turkish border without taking into account Azerbaijan’s interests.

Do you share opinion of experts who believe that Washington turns a blind eye to Armenia’s occupation policy in order to keep it away from Russia’s sphere of influence?

I cannot fully agree with this opinion. First, because Armenia is a traditional ally of Russia, and it is very complicated to "pull" it from Moscow’s influence. Secondly, those who stand behind Barack Obama do not want influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan to grow in the region. They are doing their best to counteract this, and do not want Azerbaijan to increase military potential fearing that we will start a war. The Armenian Diaspora is also involved in this. But I would not exaggerate its impact.

In your opinion, what is the goal of the U.S. current policy towards Azerbaijan and Turkey?

There are many political schools in the U.S. that offer a strategy of action to the White House. One of these strategists is well-known Zbigniew Brzezinski, who says that after the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States should play the role of leader in world politics and should not allow states to increase power to such an extent to become regional players.

He considers empowerment of countries to be the main danger for the United States. Indeed, in China’s case we see that states begin to emerge from the influence of Washington once they become powerful. Today, the White House can no longer get any resolution adopted in the UN Security Council without China’s consent.


/Day.Az/