Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Hrachya Arzumanyan: “Four day war” provided the Armenian diplomacy a unique chance to get rid of Madrid principles
Material posted: Arzumanyan Rach'yaPublication date: 22-04-2016
Director of the center for strategic research “Ashkharh” (Stepanakert), an expert on the military and national security, candidate of technical Sciences, Hrachya Arzumanian in his interview to ArmInfo talks about the causes and geopolitical consequences of the “four day war”. Possible impact on the emergence of Azerbaijan's aggression against Artsakh world's centres of power, the causes of anti-Russian sentiment in Armenia.

Azerbaijan-initiated “four-day war”, have received different assessments from reconnaissance to attempt blitzkrieg with far-reaching plans. What goals stood before the two brigades of the Azerbaijani armed forces, in Your opinion?

In my opinion, is still closer to reality assessment of the blitzkrieg. Had an attempt to break through the Karabakh defense forces and if our soldiers on the front line in company strong points not survived, today we would have a completely different scenario. The armed forces of Azerbaijan failed to advance to the next stage, when the breakthrough would have been thrown already, tank wedge, widening and deepening success. Fortunately, our guys did not flinch, and the military threat on the whole eliminated. Occurred can truly be called "reconnaissance", if we apply this concept to the military and geopolitical arena. The aim was to clarify how securely Russia controls the Caucasus and are the regional and geopolitical centers of power to press it.

The reasons for the renewed Azerbaijani aggression against Artsakh were internal or Aliyev to that someone strongly pushed?

Artsakh and the Caucasus in General are in the focus of geopolitical confrontation. As a consequence, the unfolding process is influenced by many factors. Azerbaijan pushed to aggression, both domestic and regional and geopolitical reasons. To say for sure which argument was decisive is difficult. I wouldn't exclude the purely personal motives of the Aliyev clan. To avoid incorrect conclusions at this stage, I think it would be correct to say that many factors and their aggregate impact on the decision.

And Turkey played in Azerbaijani aggression the role of a secondary mechanism or a motivator?

Turkey, of course, has all happened. But to exaggerate its role is not worth it. Ankara the Armenian issue and the Karabakh conflict settlement, the Armenian side should be regarded as a constant. In any case at the regional or geopolitical arenas Turkey remains hostile government of Armenia. In recent times much has been said that Ankara could make to push Azerbaijan to aggression difficulties in foreign policy. However, the Turkish policy is, in my opinion, remains stable and unchanged in recent years, and I don't see any major changes and force majeure, which prompted Ankara would provoke Azerbaijan on such an unusual and unpredictable step. Turkey has great political and military experience and understands that any war is unpredictable in its consequences. Having serious problems in Syria to open another front in the Caucasus, where Russia's role remains crucial, illogical and not pragmatic. I am not inclined to refer to Erdogan as insane policy. I think this is a wrong point of view.

The agreement on ceasefire was signed in Moscow, which announced the intensification of the stalled negotiation process. In Your opinion, Russia has shown such activity on its own initiative or still as a result of a political combination which has compelled Moscow to be more involved in the Karabakh settlement?

We need to understand that the Caucasus as a whole remains under Russian security umbrella. Four-day war showed the geopolitical centers of power and the world that she solves the problems in the Caucasus, and any attempt other centers to designate its military presence will end in a war. The experience of Georgia in 2008, Azerbaijan 2016 show this clearly. What forces decided once again to test the strength of the monopoly of Russia in the Caucasus, - it is necessary to analyze. I don't think it could be the U.S., where presidential elections are expected, the change of administration. Venturing in such circumstances, a great game in the Caucasus Washington, most likely, there is no reason. Remain regional players who wished to test the reaction of the “Russian bear” in the Caucasus. First of all, Saudi Arabia, Israel and to a lesser extent, Turkey, directly bordering the region. Opening for Iran and Russia, another proxy war, being directly distantsirovaniya from it – a very good move.

What about the UK?

I don't see any reason why Britain would start a war. The interests of British Petroleum protected, not questioned. Why would the UK be put at risk their own assets and so roughly to break the current in the Caucasus the balance of power?

Don't You think that the US could take that step under its rather successful policy aimed at advancing the situation?

I see no reason or occasion for haste in the USA. If we are talking about such a complex game, it is reason to discuss the events of Washington. The United States understands that blowing up Armenia, they will inevitably blow up Azerbaijan, then across the Caucasus to start a big game and the reaction of Moscow will be tougher than in Syria. It would be too straightforward step. Such a step was possible in Ukraine but not in the Caucasus, where the interests of secular powers.

Anti-Russian sentiments in Armenia, demonstration of the complete ineffectiveness of the CSTO, Russia lost the last crumbs of trust of the Armenian society do not present to US the benefits?

Yes, Russia certainly lost the "four day war", but we must not forget that all the processes, at least after it started, was initiated through Moscow. For example, nobody was forced to do Rogozin's statement, which I would call a "nuclear strike" on the Armenian-Russian relations. It's a step senior Russian and not an American statesman. It turns out the Deputy Prime Minister works on the United States? The Armenian side is not entitled to such a conclusion. That is, speaking about the American influence on the “four day war” and post-conflict processes need to be more complex models, not primitivity reality. And agree, to accept the fact that the Russian policy was, is and will be heterogeneous. There are forces that can be put on the collapse of Russia, and no "the machinations of Washington's" no match for your destructive consequences with the action of this force. It was during the USSR collapse and it could happen again, why not?

It is what it is...

Yes. It is important for us to understand that in any case this Russian policy, not the "American footprint" in Moscow. For the Armenian people in a state of war, it is unacceptable quirks. The main impact on Armenian-Russian relations is applied today is not the United States, and Russia, by the mouth of its statesmen, the supply of modern offensive weapons, etc. the opportunities of the Armenian political science, diplomacy does not allow to reliably estimate such a complex model, when in Moscow's actions could discern the interests and the steps of another geopolitical center of power, not Russia. Such attempts will immediately result in a "schizophrenia", and we find ourselves in a pit of conspiracy during the hot phase of the war. And this is a defeat.

Today on our arena can reliably distinguish between the interests and the steps of Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran. But not the U.S. or Europe. Of course, such interests are present, but they have yet to manifest. We don't have much resources and effort and it would be better to concentrate on the emerged challenges and threats, as well as opportunities.

Anyway, all this led to the revitalization of stalled negotiations. She made declarations on the need for accommodation in the Karabakh peacekeepers, however, in the context of batch settlement. In Your opinion, it is about the Madrid principles or the Kazan documents?

I think it is, after all, is the Kazan package, although we can argue that both approaches are Armenian States is unacceptable. In due time the Armenian side forced an unacceptable frame of the negotiations that leads us from one diplomatic defeat to the other. Working on a new plan of settlement of the Artsakh should, finally, learn to distinguish policy from diplomacy. Armenian politicians should stop doing the steps, which will be very difficult to refuse the Armenian diplomacy. Armenian politicians had no right to agree to negotiate, in which it is intended to surrender any of the territories. In my opinion, the Armenian side is now important to realize that diplomatic negotiations take place before and after the war. And war "resets" everything that came before. The negotiations within the framework of the Madrid principles was leaking between the two wars – the first four-day Artsakh and. Four-day war created a new reality, and we have the ability to state that pre-war political arrangements stopped working. Azerbaijani aggression dared obligations of the Armenian side. That is, the Armenian politicians and diplomacy has a unique chance and a small window of opportunity to get rid of the Madrid principles. The window will close as soon as the presidents or the foreign Ministers would agree to a meeting, where you hear the phrase “the Madrid principles”.

Gave rise to the “four day war” new threats in the form of dissatisfaction concerning the work of the people of Artsakh Yerevan policies towards the resolution of the conflict?

I think this is unacceptable and losing the question for the Armenian people. We can not allow the very idea that the Armenian presidents may have different points of view on the settlement of Artsakh. This is a clear and blatant threat to Armenian statehood, in the event both the President should resign. Not for the Armenian people recently stood in the war to prevent the possibility of any games. The Armenian state was performed and should perform in the future synchronized policy in the Karabakh issue. Another question. If the Armenian side the strategy of this solution, corresponding to the realities of the 21st century? Think no such strategy. And this is a very big problem. Armenian Artsakh settlement strategy in the early 21st century is a tough challenge faced by the Armenian political thought. We must concentrate all of the available intellectual potential, as quickly as possible to prepare a response. Diplomatic negotiations of Artsakh is not far off, however, today the Armenian politics and diplomacy to offer to the Armenian people and the world has nothing.

Interviewed By David Stepanyan



RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security