Russian expert: Azerbaijan's Military Doctrine will force Armenian side to make some changes

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will tour the South Caucasus in early July. What one should expect from her visit amid increased U.S. attention towards Azerbaijan lately?

Most likely, increased attention towards Azerbaijan is due to Iranian issue. The latest unprecedentedly tough sanction against Iran show that Washington has refused military attack on Iran for now only to weaken the country in other ways. In such cases, when one country ends up in area of unkind attention of America, all its neighbors will immediately come to the attention of the interested party. Azerbaijan’s position is critical in the Iranian issue.

In your opinion, may Clinton’s regional tour bring about tangible results in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution?

Sometimes it is useful to clarify the meaning of words, especially in cases when it depends on who utters them. In case of Azerbaijani politician, settlement of the Karabakh conflict means return of lost territories. But in case of Armenian politician, conflict settlement means Azerbaijan's recognition of independence of Karabakh.

As to American politician, in this case the word “resolution” means a process, but not results. The striking example is the Middle East process. This is a very complex, costly, time-consuming road to nowhere, because the parties' positions have not changed and remain irreconcilable.

Roughly speaking, if two people are on a log, leaning and pushing each other, the Americans will offer the parties a comfortable bridge, which is convenient to stand in exchange for some political and economic preferences from both sides. It shoud be noted the bridges offerd by Americans are really comfortable. If the conflict can not end or even defer without losing face one of the parties, it makes sense to hold the process in comfort.

This applies, in particular, to the Madrid principles on settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Roughly speaking, they offer liberation of regions around Nagorno-Karabakh in exchange for a corridor with Armenia and a promise of a transitional status, which will finally be determined by a referendum, the conditions for which are unclear.

Azerbaijan recently adopted Military Doctrine. In your opinion, may this pave a way for resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by force?

Azerbaijan has changed dramatically. This is not the Azerbaijan of 1993, but a different country. This is a rapidly growing state, both economically and demographically. The country, filled with force, and wants to revenge. On the other hand, all the current achievements of Azerbaijan may be zeroed because of the war, whatever results it would have. Price Azerbaijan will pay for a military victory is very high. However, as an instrument of diplomatic and media pressure on Armenia, Azerbaijan’s Military Doctrine may play an important role and force the Armenian side to make some changes in position.

May the recent strong rapprochement between Russia and Turkey cause movements in the Karabakh conflict resolution?

It is early to speak about any radical breakthrough in Russia-Turkey relations. These ties are  stable. They are neither too close nor too bad. Regarding the possible influence of the Russian-Turkish relations on developments related to Karabakh conflict settlement, it may be different. It depends on some concessions Turkey and Russia can make in the Karabakh issue in exchange for something else.


/Day.Az/