Russian analyst labels Armenian government as one of "provocation" Andrei Koryakovtsev hosted by Caliber.Az

Caliber.Az presents an interview with Andrei Koryakovtsev, an analyst at the Russian Institute of New Society.

- How do you assess the anti-Russian sentiments in Armenia? Are they related to the CSTO's unwillingness to intervene in the Armenian-Azerbaijani border situation?

- I can't say how big the anti-Russian sentiments are in Armenia (I don't have exact data from opinion polls), but the bottom line is that these sentiments have a political expression in the form of Pashinyan's government, which can be called a government of provocations. His provocations are mainly directed against Russia and Azerbaijan. In such a policy, the political independence of Armenia as a state is manifested. In this, it differs from its eastern neighbour, which cannot be accused of any special pro-Russian loyalty, but with which Russia is more comfortable dealing due to its independence and, therefore, predictability in foreign policy. Anti-Russian sentiment has been a constant in Armenian politics recently, and it is not, in my opinion, directly related to the CSTO position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Russia will be found guilty in any case, according to the Pashinyan government.

- Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi hinted on her Twitter account before leaving for Armenia that Yerevan faces a choice between autocracy and democracy. Should this be regarded as a US call for Armenia to get out of Russia's influence?

- Of course, it should be. This is precisely a call for Armenia to get out of Russia's influence. The idea of democracy has long since, since the Soviet era, turned into an ideological tool for the United States to irritate and provoke its rivals.

- Will Armenia decide to take such a step? What consequences can this lead to?

- That is, will Armenia leave the CSTO? Probably not shortly. After all, the CSTO provides its diplomatic and military protection from external invasion. Secondly, the essence of the policy of provocations is not in breaking with the one who is being provoked, but in expanding influence on him. It can be assumed that Pashinyan's American curators do not set such a task for him either. The forms of anti-Russian and anti-Azerbaijani provocations may be different. The CSTO membership does not limit them at all. Thirdly, Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO is also unprofitable for Russia: Pashinyan's government is not forever. It is not difficult to notice a tangle of contradictions here, even a dead end for all sides of Transcaucasus politics, but this dead end appears to suit everyone so far due to even worse alternatives.

- Will Moscow react to Pelosi's visit to Armenia?

- The United States would very much like Russia, against the background of the "special military operation" in Ukraine, to be involved in a military conflict in the South Caucasus. Moscow will avoid this as much as possible. And she took diplomatic measures in response to the new escalation of the situation on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border.
This could be interpreted as her reaction to Pelosi's visit. The most appropriate one under the current circumstances.

- Compared to the United States, France's position is extremely unambiguous - Paris is very concerned about the support of Azerbaijan by Türkiye, Ankara's strengthening and influence in the region. The US seems to be trying to maintain a balance in its relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, but at the same time, unfounded and biased opinions about our country are heard there. What is it connected with, in your opinion?

- If the United States expresses clearly unfounded and biased opinions about Azerbaijan, but at the same time declares that they are trying to maintain a balance between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, then one thing follows from this: the practical steps of the United States run counter to their declarations. And this is the consistent implementation of the policy of provocations imposed by the Americans on the Armenian state and some other states in the post-Soviet space. Sovereign states can only oppose this policy with one thing: respect for their own national interests.