“What can Paris do? Dispatch foreign legion to Karabakh?” Oleg Bondarenko for Caliber.Az

The recent virtuoso rebuff that Azerbaijan gave to the Armenian propaganda machine in the UN Security Council showed that a large number of countries support Baku's constructive and consistent policy. And those states that are still on the side of Armenia are primarily pursuing purely their own interests. Even Moscow, the main ally and partner of Yerevan, was critical of Yerevan's statements. Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, urged Armenia to "approach the use of the Security Council platform in this context" with full responsibility.

However, it is worth recognizing that the positions of our countries do not always coincide. In what political aspects are Moscow and Baku unanimous, and in what and why do their opinions differ? Oleg Bondarenko, director of the Progressive Policy Foundation, Russian political expert, expressed his point of view on this matter in an interview with Caliber.Az.

- What did Armenians count on, addressing their absolutely groundless claims to the UN Security Council, and why did Russia not support Yerevan?

- The fact is that Russia everywhere supports the logic of formalism. This has its pros and cons. That is, if from the point of view of international law and the former Soviet and post-Soviet jurisdiction, from the point of view of all international institutions, Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan, then only Azerbaijan has the sovereign right to resolve all issues related to Karabakh, and not to anyone else.

In this context, I can confidently say one thing: if one of the parties - Armenia, for almost forty years of the conflict, did not find resources in itself, did not consider it necessary to recognise Karabakh as a separate independent state or as its territory, then this unambiguously determines that Karabakh is precisely Azerbaijani land. And Armenia recognises this fact as its default policy, so to speak, even if we do not take into account the recent recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by Yerevan. Russia proceeds from the same concepts of universal international law. That is, here Moscow professes a more formal logic than even, say, the same France.

As for some individual statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which, perhaps, sometimes get out of this context, these are just situational moments that do not affect the general approach as a whole.

And again, I note that Moscow’s point of view that Karabakh is unambiguously Azerbaijani territory is not even connected with the fact that approximately the same number of Armenians and Azerbaijanis live in Russia and it would be somewhat dangerous for her to take the position of only one of the parties, in my opinion, here the same logic of formalism still plays a decisive role.

- Very few actively supported Yerevan in the UN. But Paris, as always, was in its role and was eager to lobby for any Armenian nonsense. What is France looking for in the South Caucasus?

- Well, at least one thing is clear - France wants to be Armenia's main advocate and lobbyist in world politics. This is due both to certain historically established Armenian-French relations of a cultural and political nature, and, as Paris believes, the only chance to cling to the region for its presence there. And since the lobbying opportunities of Azerbaijan are currently very serious and Turkey and other countries, up to the UK, are engaged in them, Paris has chosen such a tactic in order to somehow indicate its interests in the region.

That is, a certain reputational history plays a role here. The question is why, for example, the West decided to invest and become to some extent a hostage of the war in Ukraine? Yes, because the Western world considered this, first of all, a reputational incentive for itself, and in the hope of getting some moral and political dividends for it.

The same is true here. Although, it seems to me, the same Charles Aznavour did much more for the Armenian-French friendship than all the presidents and prime ministers of both countries. But, on the other hand, logically speaking, it would be strange if Paris took some other point of view in this geopolitical period of time and, for example, was Azerbaijan's lawyer.

- So, should we in Azerbaijan be afraid of the stubborn tactics of screwing France into the local geopolitics?

- No, I do not think so. And what can Paris do - send the Foreign Legion to protect the Armenians of Karabakh? I doubt it very much. France cannot advance deeply and on a large scale here.

- How, in general, does Russia now assess the strategy of Armenia, which, by all obvious signs, has abandoned constructive actions and negotiations on signing a peace treaty and fulfilling its obligations under the 2020 Trilateral Statement, although Moscow also made a lot of efforts to develop this dialogue between the parties? Russia is very keen on the implementation of some of these agreements. For instance, she did a lot to promote negotiations on unblocking the Zangazur corridor. And there are fears that all conversations, meetings and discussions on this topic were in vain. Is Moscow not offended for the efforts made and for the fact that the intrigues of Armenian politicians have greatly spoiled Russia's plans in the South Caucasus?

- In my opinion, the conflict, which was frozen for 27 years, and then suddenly, in 2020, turned out to be unfrozen as a result of the 44-day war, cannot be resolved like this, in the short term. In general, I note that agreements are sometimes concluded not in order to fulfill them - this is just politeness and a declaration. The same is true, for example, of the Minsk agreements between Russia and Ukraine - they were originally written in such a way that they could not be implemented. Agreements are often concluded only to indicate some desired goals - for one side and for the other.

And they are not executed, because, firstly, there are no guarantors of their execution, which could oblige one of the parties to engage in its implementation. And secondly, because no one is interested in this by and large. Although in words everyone seems to be in favor and express their commitment to solving this or that issue. Most of the agreements, unfortunately, are not implemented either in full or in part, including numerous UN resolutions and verdicts of other international institutions. And most often they are concluded simply to stop the bloodshed. I even think that the conflict in Ukraine will end with the conclusion of similar new Minsk agreements, the main mission of which will simply be to freeze this conflict.

- Then for the continuation of the topic. If Armenia’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement has become chronic and hopeless, then do you think, Russia will be sympathetic if Azerbaijan tries to resolve all outstanding issues on its own, for example, with a direct operation to clean up illegal armed groups in Karabakh? After all, such a situation is objectively ripe.

- Well, in fact, Azerbaijan has already carried out such special operations, and I think you saw how the Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh reacted to this - they did not particularly interfere with the Azerbaijani military. However, if the operation becomes too large, then, perhaps, the Russian peacekeepers will not sit idly by. In this context, it also seems to me that in the coming years, the Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh do not intend to leave and are determined to maintain the current status quo. Although in general, yes, Russia recognizes that this is the territory of Azerbaijan.

- The situation clearly smells of double standards. And then what about the same Trilateral Statement of 2020, according to which Armenia is obliged to withdraw its armed formations from Karabakh, of which Russia is the guarantor? And, by the way, according to the same document, the contingent of Russian peacekeepers must leave Karabakh in 2025, if one of the parties so desires. Has all this been forgotten?

- Let's try to parse out: what is the "armed forces", how to interpret and define them in relation to the situation - who is a separatist and who is a civilian. And if someone sees the situation as unambiguous, then for the other side, it is a matter of some politeness.

So, Azerbaijan, if it intends to act, then, as before, to clean up only illegal armed groups. Such an operation does not threaten any civilian facilities and local residents: the accuracy of the actions of the Azerbaijani military is a model for many armies of the world.

- One way or another, I would like to note again: peace agreements are concluded not in order to fulfill them, but in order to suspend the situation. For an indefinite long period, but in a state of peace. So, Russia is currently interested in freezing the situation, I would say that Russia is striving for this as much as possible.

- In the meantime, Azerbaijan also does not sleep and not only calculates the places of deployment of the separatists, but also establishes negotiations with the Armenian population of Karabakh. And the work is being carried out, regardless of any statements by the leaders of the separatists and politicians in Yerevan. And even the towers of the Kremlin...

- I am afraid that the process of such negotiations can drag on for decades... Unfortunately, in such regional conflicts, in my opinion, there are no quick solutions. And dynamic discharge is not worth waiting for.