Lavrov's ambiguous rhetoric speaks of Moscow's search for a better manoeuvre

Russian FM once again spoke on Karabakh and the situation on the notional Armenian-Azerbaijani border in his TV interview with Dmitry Kiselev. To sum up, as far as the peace process is concerned there is almost nothing new. In fact, Lavrov continued the discourse started by Putin at the Valdai Forum and then picked up by Maria Zakharova (a detailed study of this agenda is in this piece). Regarding border incidents, the Russian diplomat stressed that Russia's proposal to deploy a CSTO mission to Armenia was still valid, and if Armenia was "still" interested, the mission could be deployed within a day or two.

Sergei Lavrov thus presented a combination of different "kind of"... Karabakh is kind of Azerbaijani, but kind of not really, but still more Azerbaijani, because the Armenians themselves acknowledged this, referring to the Almaty Declaration when they signed the Prague statement in October 2022. Like we, the Russians, could do something about the 'status' of the Karabakh Armenians, but after this step by the Armenian side, the task has become more difficult. However, if you Armenians let the CSTO in on the border with Azerbaijan, that would be kind of good.

We can make the following assumption concerning the latter: the diplomat probably means that in this case the prospects of delimitation may be postponed for an indefinite future, and since Baku agrees to sign peace on condition of compliance with all the five points in the complex it voiced, peace can wait...

If this message is considered in the light of an earlier statement about the undesirability of the EU mission's presence due to its lack of coordination with Azerbaijan, it does not reflect Baku's interests, but rather the same leitmotif as that of the Russian top diplomat - it is the Russian military, not European agents, who should be stationed on the Armenian border.

However, there is still one important new detail in this series of seemingly familiar messages from Russian diplomacy. For the first time, a senior Russian official used the term "occupation" in reference to the seven districts around the former "Nagorno Karabakh". Previously Russian politicians, recognising the sovereignty of Azerbaijan over these territories, had used more neutral characteristics: "territories held by Armenia", "territories under Armenian control" and so on. Such a tightening of rhetoric suggests that the degree of alienation between Russia and its rapidly escaping satellite has increased. Time will tell whether Russia's new diplomatic discourse is a signal of its readiness to support Azerbaijan's principles of a peaceful settlement. However, let's not indulge in self-deception - what we are witnessing today is not Moscow's "enlightenment", but a reaction to Yerevan's Western course.

On the whole, one can conclude that in the circumstances of Russia's "full employment" in the Ukrainian war, Moscow is driven by its desire to temporarily dismiss the problem and leave everything as it is in order to undertake a more successful manoeuvre later.

This was indirectly evidenced by the atmosphere of the interview itself. Dmitry Kiselyov, who traditionally tends to be an energetic interviewer, and Sergei Lavrov, who usually does not forget to smile, appeared in front of the audience rather tired. "When will it all end?" Kiselyov's first question was not accidental. Even mastery of the venerable media professional could not prevent this cry of despair. How can one compare such a tone with the mood of Russian media a year ago, when Russian troops invaded Ukraine?

In these circumstances, however, Moscow has nevertheless taken steps to maintain its interests in the South Caucasus. The most active play was the sending of the "tame" oligarch Ruben Vardanyan, which only resulted in stalling the positive momentum in the negotiations between the Azerbaijani authorities and representatives of the Karabakh Armenian community. The failure of this operation demonstrates the Kremlin's underestimation of the Azerbaijani side's arsenal of tools. The Vardanyan crisis was a huge blow to Russia's image not only in Azerbaijan but also in Armenia and even among Karabakh Armenians. Such a short-sighted approach shows a lack of flexibility in tactical thinking in Russian leadership.

Pashinyan's government, on the other hand, is trying to maintain the new status quo in the best traditions of the "patriarchs" of Armenian diplomacy - Oskanyan and Nalbandyan. There is a complete lack of strategic vision. The attempt to keep "everything as it is" has led to a defeat in 2020. It seems that Armenian politicians do not notice that the current status quo is just an artifact, the attempt to keep it against the background of Azerbaijan's authority threatens the Armenian project with a final catastrophe.

Lavrov said in an interview that Russia has proposed to Armenia the return of the districts (referring above all to the 5+2 formula) around the defunct "Nagorno-Karabakh," to which the Armenian leadership refused. Such an initiative was also mentioned by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. It should be noted that this formula was primarily at odds with the interests of Azerbaijan (more on this below). At the same time, our country participated in the negotiations trying to reach some kind of constructive consensus. Against this background, the behaviour of the Armenian side was totally surprising. Serzh Sargsyan, for example, did not welcome Lavrov's initiative and subsequently denied the very fact of such a message, stating that Armenia's position had always been strong... Sargsyan's revolutionary successor Nikol Pashinyan, however, found nothing better to do than to adopt the tactics of his mental antagonist - hiding his head in the sand. A media excerpt from the late 2019 chronicle is noteworthy: "For her part, Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Anna Naghdalyan commented at a briefing in Yerevan on statements by Azerbaijan's foreign minister that the so-called 'Lavrov Plan' is being discussed at the Nagorno-Karabakh talks. She noted that no document at all is being discussed at the talks at the moment".

That's all diplomacy! I see nothing, I hear nothing. A clear attribute of a failed state. Given the recent developments around the expected EU mission and the actual trading of its sovereignty, we can conclude that Armenia is rapidly losing the visible remnants of statehood.

In this situation, the winner is the one who bases his policy not on reactions to external events, but according to a strategic objective, applying a wide range of options of action depending on the tactically changing situation. In the Armenia-Russia-Azerbaijan triangle, this is currently the case with our country. We are already used to ambiguous statements by Kremlin officials, and we do not build our policy with media messages in mind, but with the real state of affairs, working through our actions diplomatically with all centres of power.

Here again, it is useful to recall that prior to the 44-day war, Russia's position was openly pro-Armenian. Aware of Azerbaijan's growing power, especially after the April 2016 war, the Kremlin, through the aforementioned Sergei Lavrov, proposed a peace plan that envisaged the return of five districts, effectively leaving the fate of the Lachin and Kalbajar districts, as well as the status of Karabakh, undefined. However, this did not prevent Azerbaijan from putting forward its own agenda and returning not five districts by force of arms, but all of the occupied territories. The liberation of the city fortress of Shusha marked the final end to the "Nagorno Karabakh" status agenda.

In conclusion, we would like to note that Azerbaijan will not retreat from a peace agenda based on the five basic principles it has voiced, while Armenia is unlikely to agree to a CSTO mission in light of recent manoeuvres towards the West. The latter is only possible if Russia manages to persuade the West to curtail its activities in Armenia. However, this does not seem likely to happen in the context of the war in Ukraine, given the West's expected delivery of new armaments to the Ukrainian army. In the meantime, the term of the RPC mission is inexorably drawing to a close...