“Statements by any US assistant secretary of state are always tactical" Experts' opinion on Caliber.Az

Washington continues to surprise, to put it mildly, with its inconsistency, churning out anti-Azerbaijani statements and actions. Thus, this week, US Assistant Secretary of State James O'Brien distinguished himself at the hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which began to voice support for the territorial integrity of Armenia, Washington's dissatisfaction with the delay in the process of signing a peace treaty, for which, according to the diplomat, it is somehow to blame Azerbaijan, as well as US concern about the departure from the idea of building the Zangezur corridor through Armenia.

The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry has already expressed its attitude to the ultimatum statements from the United States. However, questions still remain. Why did such rhetoric suddenly appear in Washington? Why are Americans suddenly so driven to defend the territorial integrity of the “country of stones”, which is not threatened by anyone? What are their interests here? The editors of Caliber.Az asked former Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Tofik Zulfugarov and St. Petersburg State University professor and Russian expert Stanislav Tkachenko to answer them.

Thus, Tofig Zulfugarov is sure that the US criticism, in fact, is not directed against Azerbaijan, its task is to attract public opinion in Armenia, to ensure the advantage of the West over the pro-Russian public opinion in this country.

“Azerbaijan is more of a reason to show yourself in the best light. Therefore, Baku looks with surprise at how Western politicians are working on a new trend - the defence of Armenia, speaking out in favour of its territorial integrity and being ready to defend it. The question arises: are these same capitals trying to act as mediators in negotiations between Baku and Yerevan, where one of the important topics of negotiations is the topic of defining borders? How to protect something that doesn’t exist yet? After all, the negotiations have not yet been completed, therefore, the borders have not yet been determined. That is, a logical contradiction arises. Pashinyan himself states that Armenia needs to obtain cadastral confirmation to determine its area. Well, first of all, you need to decide what Armenia is in general,” the former minister noted.

Therefore, in his opinion, all these attacks by the Americans are primarily of a propaganda nature, in order to earn some points and sympathy from the Armenian public in the context of the confrontation between Russia and the West in the political field. And now in Armenia, pro-Western and pro-Russian forces have clashed.

“I treat all these statements with great irony because they are absurd. How is the United States going to defend the territorial integrity of Armenia if the Armenians themselves do not know what it is? Therefore, when Pashinyan starts talking about square kilometres, naming specific numbers, it looks ridiculous. In addition to Azerbaijan, Armenia’s border with Georgia has not yet been demarcated. So where does such an accurate mathematical calculation come from? Now, due to the lowering of the level of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan also has extra kilometres. Let's count them too. So, it is unclear who these unlawful, from the point of view of international law, statements are intended for.

As for the Zangezur corridor, I don’t think we really need it now. We need the border to be defined fairly according to the borders that existed before the occupation of Azerbaijan and Armenia by Bolshevik Russia. And then all of Zangezur was part of Azerbaijan. Then why, one wonders, do we need to treat the decision of the Caucasian Bureau under the leadership of Ordzhonikidze with some reverence and consider it the basis of foundations? What is the logic of the statements in Granada, which call for resolving this issue to proceed from the maps of the General Staff of the Soviet era? But the USSR is long gone. Where is the logic? Statements like these make these politicians a laughing stock. In general, it’s worth thinking about where Macron and Scholz got such a love for maps of the Soviet Union? That is, it turns out that no matter what Pashinyan says, it is perceived as the ultimate truth. Why then are there any need for negotiations and representatives of Western countries who call themselves mediators but do not behave as such?

Armenians are now spreading the story that the Zangezur corridor is beneficial only to Azerbaijan, Türkiye and Russia. And for some reason, they are silent about the fact that it is also beneficial to the West, directly to the United States. Moreover, the United States is one of the most interested parties in this. Including in the context of US interest in the countries of Central Asia. Because any active activity in Central Asia without the support of Türkiye and Azerbaijan is simply impossible.

Thus, we see that the United States, in fact, is forced to support the concept of the Zangezur corridor, and with a certain policy of Azerbaijan, it will be forced to support our aspirations to eliminate the historical injustice that was committed by the Bolsheviks. Therefore, this issue is multi-level and despite the fact that the speeches of US representatives are presented as anti-Azerbaijani, I think we need to look deeper and understand all the advantages that we have in the context of this geopolitical situation.

In general, I am not at all inclined to overestimate the statements of any acting assistant secretary of state - they are always of a tactical nature. For example, we have seen many statements by the heads of state of the former Minsk Group about the inadmissibility of freezing the conflict in Karabakh - and what was the result? And then some eleventh assistant secretary of state, the retiring Borrell, is saying absurd things. They must be treated accordingly,” Zulfugarov noted.

For his part, Stanislav Tkachenko notes that Russia's relations with Armenia are going through a cooling period. Therefore, much of what Russian diplomacy considered unchanged in previous years is now being revised.

“Moscow is probably thinking about how to restore a sense of reality to Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, who is pursuing an increasingly provocative foreign policy towards Russia. Every game in diplomacy has rules and time limits, and in this case Armenia has already violated them. The demonstrative expansion of contacts with Ukraine, which is hostile to Russia, as well as clumsy attempts to demonstrate support for Armenia on the part of extra-regional players (India, the EU and the US) are leading to a crisis in relations between Moscow and Yerevan with unpredictable consequences for the latter. Moscow periodically calls for returning relations to their previous course, but so far Yerevan is not going to stop its risky game,” Tkachenko said.

In connection with the above, it is not possible to predict Russia’s policy in relation to the Zangezur corridor as an important transport and logistics route opening the South Caucasus region to broad international interaction.

“Moscow understands that the issue of opening a corridor has become perhaps the last foreign policy resource for Yerevan, which it can use in relations with major players, making attempts to exchange it for something valuable and important. It seems that Yerevan made a mistake about Russia’s real attitude towards this project. In our opinion, it is now more important for Russia to generate sustainable support for the Zangezur corridor from all interested states than to rush into its implementation “here and now.” Otherwise, instead of expanding cooperation, efforts to open the Zangezur corridor could become a reason for a new regional conflict and even war. In practice, Russia seeks to make sure that all interested parties are truly ready to cooperate, based on their own economic interests, and not the political wishes of others. That is Moscow is in no hurry regarding the opening of the Zangezur corridor, it is waiting and analyzing the events taking place,” Tkachenko believes.

In his opinion, US interference in the complex network of relations around the Zangezur corridor represents precisely the danger that Russia would like to avoid. The main directions of Washington’s efforts are squeezing Russia out of the South Caucasus region, weakening Iran, and creating obstacles to the normalization of relations between Baku and Yerevan. In addition, Washington currently has no trust in its relations with Russia, Iran and Türkiye.

“American diplomacy also lacks the ability to dictate to all countries in the region a line of behaviour in their relations with each other. Therefore, the obvious weakening of Armenia both from the point of view of the internal political (crisis after the defeat in the war with Azerbaijan) and diplomatic (tense relations with Russia) situation gave Washington hope that Yerevan would become an instrument provoking tension within the South Caucasus, and ideally – a lasting conflict.

The United States would like to involve Iran in a military confrontation with any of its neighbouring countries in order to undermine its stability and weaken the possibility of intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And opposition to Russia’s interests in the South Caucasus region should complement pressure on Moscow, which so far is implemented only in the form of a “war by proxy” that Washington is waging with Russia in Ukraine.

Russia understands that the states of the South Caucasus will be able to build stable long-term ties only on the basis of their national interests, affecting both issues of security and economic cooperation. Therefore, Russia, almost completely absorbed in the conflict in Ukraine, will try to influence the states of the region diplomatically, as well as through the implementation of those economic projects that do not cause controversy. These include the North-South ITC, as well as bilateral ties with Afghanistan, Iran, Türkiye, and increasingly with Georgia. Moscow is confident that Washington has already discredited itself in regional affairs. Recognition of this fact by all states of the South Caucasus is a matter of the near future,” Tkachenko concluded.