“The legend of harmful paranoid scenarios and danger of irritated brain”

“Bummer!” – this is how the Azeri president would have qualified the Russian president’s straight-from-the-shoulder remark on Nagorno-Karabakh in his interview with Russia Today and First Informational Caucasus TV channels and Echo of Moscow radio company with regard to Saakashvili’s military speculation in August 2008.

However, in order to trace the chronicle of the subject, let us “get back to our muttons” first …

… Ilham Aliyev: “I’d like to add something. Actually, I expected as much from Sargsyan. Because I’ve had a lot of meetings with him”.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan: “I do not know him so well as you do…”


These phrases from the dialogue at a joint press conference in Baku unconditionally testify to the high point of the alliance of Baku and Ankara, which have strongly consolidated their efforts against Yerevan. 

Baku, which looks for a reason even where there is no reason at all, has got into exaltation due to Serzh Sargsyan’s recent conversation with Armenian students, when the Armenian leader appealed to the historical memory of ancestors and was nostalgic about Western Armenia.    

First and foremost, concerned over his own irremovability, Aliyev has seen a fateful error in Sargsyan’s “lyrical digression” about the well known state of affairs. Aliyev thought that the “reason” was meant to turn Baku’s ambitions concerning Karabakh and the lands around it into reality, which can be called nothing else but phantasmagoria. Aliyev was not mistaken when relying on the help of Turkey, the elder brother of Azerbaijan.  

The Armenian public was expecting an official response of Yerevan. The response, however, came from Moscow.

Statement of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

When touching on the “peace enforcement” operation against Georgia that Russia held in South Ossetia in 2008, the Russian leader pointed out Saakashvili’s “unwise” conduct, actually stressing the unacceptability of reoccurrence of such a scenario in Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Medvedev said, “When this happened, both leaders (both President Aliyev and President Sargsyan) visited Sochi. Do you know what they told me? They said "Of course, it's bad that all it’s happened, it's a painful thing for the Caucasus". I said "It’s very bad". – “But you know it’s a certain lesson for us that it is better to hold endless talks on the destiny of Nagorno- Karabakh, on whether there will be a referendum there and how we should prepare a peace agreement than to have 5 days of war”. This was a very serious lesson for them. I think it is very illustrative. Why? Because if one recalls what happened then, it becomes clear that if our Georgian counterpart had some wits, we would also have met in Sochi, Kazan and in some other place. And we would also have thought how to look for compromises in the relations between the parts of the state, which used to be integral, but now it is Georgia and its split off parts. But this would be a political process. I do not know what prospects it would have. Probably, we would have never agreed, maybe some confederation would have appeared. But he tore his country”.

So…

If we suppose that Baku’s reaction is the response to Medvedev’s suggestion sent to both capitals earlier, Moscow was not slow to demonstrate its own forceful stance. In fact, in the context of the pooping anti-Armenia hysteria of Baku, this statement of Medvedev is a unambiguous warning to Aliyev to revert to recognition of the existing realities, particularly, to realize the internationally recognized people’s right to self-determination.      

Furthermore, it is hardly beneficial to rely on the support of Ankara, urging it to unleash the conflict: Turkey, which is constantly trying on European values and is enchanted with the shine of these values, has enough domestic and real territorial problems not to get involved in Alyev’s doubtful speculation.

Medvedev has made it quite clear that Russia has an undisputable advantage over Ankara in such kind of issues, so the Azeri “hidalgo” will have to give up his cunning plan on consolidation of the Azerbaijani-Turkish forces against Armenia.

It is quite clear that the instinctive euphoria of Aliyev quickens the imagination and depicts the invincibility of Azerbaijani soldiers in Karabakh and Armenia. However, the “splendor” ascribed to the Azerbaijani army is ostensible, as there will never be any guarantees for absolute victory in the new war.    

In case of a speculation like the one of Saakashvli, the region will turn into a complete chaos. It is not hard to imagine the results of it, and the results are not in Aliyev’s favor.   

So, one should sensibly suppose that the temper of the “glorious sultan” Aliyev will be tamed after such warning by Medvedev, because there is no solution to the problem giving harmony in the Azerbaijani way, and the sooner Aliyev realizes that, the better we will sleep at last.

 
Nota bene: During the notorious cordial talks with the students, Sargsyan aptly compared Armenians with the mythic bird Phoenix. I’d like to draw our leader’s attention to the fact that very often we revive not on our historical land…   

P.S. Having finished the article, I noticed the information that Medvedev invited Aliyev to Sochi. The forecast about Moscow’s response was not slow to arrive. And taking into account Medvedev’s regret over the fact that if he had been warned about the “paranoid scenario” in the “irritated brain” of Saakashvili he would have “dissuaded” him, it is not hard to suppose what the conversation with Ilham Aliyev will be about.  

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)