OPINION: Andrey Ryabov: "Transference of the Karabakh conflict to the military stage is the main threat for Russia’s influence in the South Caucasus"

What threats to the Russian interests in Armenia and Azerbaijan do you observe?
 
Undoubtedly, the main threat for Russia in the South Caucasus is defrosting of the Karabakh conflict and its transference to the military stage. The point is that today Russia is forced to combine close geo-political relations with Armenia and its energy interests, in which Azerbaijan plays a serious part like a transit and oil-producing country. Today these problems are becoming more and more relevant for Russia, taking into account the fact that Russia did not manage to make an arrangement with its Western partners on transit of energy resources via the South Caucasus. At the same time, the fact that during Dmitry Medvedev's presidency 6 trilateral meetings of the presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were held says that settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a priority for Moscow.

In this context, they in Russia believe that in conditions of neither peace nor mutual understanding in the region, the best choice for everyone is maintenance of the post-military status quo. After the war 08.08.08. there were too many concerns about Russia's becoming a revisionist super power changing the borders in the region. But Russia has no such idea acceptable to all the conflicting sides. Neither has it an opportunity to realize such ideas.  In this context, Moscow made quite a reasonable decision to maintain the status-quo, I think. Today the relations between Russia and Georgia look more or less stable and have no pre-condition for changing of the situation established by the results of the war 08.08.08. For this reason, Russia is more anxious about resumption of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The fact that Azerbaijan is building up its military potential and forming its own not so big military and industrial complex is the main threat. In Russia they strictly understand that transference of the status-quo around the Karabakh conflict to the military conflict will have very hard and probably irreversible consequences for the Russian policy and its influence in the South Caucasus.

Let's talk about the reasons...

There is no doubt that in case of resumption of the Karabakh conflict Russia, as a partner, will lose its significance for both parties to the Karabakh conflict. This is the reason of such great efforts of Moscow and President Medvedev to preserve the status-quo, which President Putin will probably continue as well.

Do the OSCE MG other co-chair states really support Russia's efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict?

I have got an impression that over the last years the USA and Europe have realized that Russia also has exclusive possibilities to maintain peace in the region. Interaction between Russia, the USA and France in this context has been improved certainly. Nevertheless, I do not trust in the scenarios saying that Azerbaijan will get a permission to break the status-quo in the Karabakh conflict zone in exchange for provision of its territory for attacks on Iran. President Aliyev's rather shaky positions require, at least, more confidence and no mistake from him. In addition, resumption of war is so risky that it is within the interests of both the USA and France to maintain the status-quo. In this light, interaction with Russia has been enhanced over the last few years. Russia is allowed to display activity in maintenance of the status-quo. At the Summit in Astana in 2010 all the member-states and super powers "proved" their inability to resolve the Karabakh conflict.  The status-quo is the best solution in the given situation. It cannot last forever, indeed, but it has no alternative.

So you don't share the opinion that in an attempt to gain leadership in the region Russia and the United States may play the Iranian card, do you?

I don't believe that the "controllable chaos" theory is possible now that the Arab spring has come. The situation in the Greater Middle East is getting increasingly uncertain, and this uncertainly has already covered one of the key countries of the region - Syria. Nobody can predict what will come of it, so, it will hardly be reasonable for anybody - whoever they are and whatever resources they have - to stake on the controllable chaos scenario. The economic crisis has limited the great powers' foreign policy capacities. So, I don't think that the US Government will take such a risk.

What logic do the "Arab revolutions" meet then?

Should there be a revolution in Syria, countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia (with their moderate Islam and tendency for modernization) may suggest that they may become better regional partners for the United States than Israel is now.

What about Libya?

While in Tunisia and Egypt everything was spontaneous, in Libya and now in Syria the West is playing a specific consistent game. Whatever it is, this game is dangerous and unpredictable, and the European Union has very limited power to keep it on the positive track.

Back on the Karabakh conflict. What probable scenario of the Karabakh conflict resolution can be predicted given the day-to-day realities?

I agree with the opinion of most analysts saying that there is a threat of resumption of the military phase of the Karabakh conflict. However, I think that the rational stance of super powers, including Russia, allows keeping the conflict frozen for rather a long period of time, even despite Baku's aspirations for changing the military balance with Armenia. The point is that another conflict in the Greater Middle East is pregnant with extremely grave aftermaths for a wide circle of countries, not just for the South Caucasus.

By David Stepanyan

1 December 2011 ArmInfo