“By Adhering to Russia, We have Lost Other Partner States and Reputation”
Interview with Hovhannes Igityan, ANM member, expert on international affairs.
– Mr. Igityan, what did the four-day war show? What conclusions may be drawn?
– Azerbaijan attempts to settle 3 issues: experimentalize reflection of the international community, whether it’s going to be operative to obstacle its programs, secondly, try Russia’s reflection, as it seems to us that Russia is our ally and will defend us, and thirdly, check military capabilities of the Armenian side. The war showed that the international community was rather passive, various statements have been made, however, addressed to both sides, and it’s difficult to say, to which side it was a bigger friend of. Military factor of the Armenian side was the most unexpected for Azerbaijan, and the most reliable for us, as it didn’t allow the adversary to advance, if Azerbaijan really pursued that purpose.
–Were actions by the Armenian side satisfactory? To which extent were we ready for that? What has or hasn’t been implemented?
– It’s necessary to analyze why the countries and international structures, which usually implement rather hard power against the aggressor, were passive this time, started from the UNO up to separate countries. Why did it happen? The reason is, Armenia’s foreign policy was directed to Russia. We have been more Catholic in this regard, than the Roman Pope, we’ve been more pro-Russian, than many Russians themselves, head of the diplomatic corps behaved like he was a Russian diplomat. What is crucial, adhering to Russia, we’ve lost other friendly states and our reputation, becoming a Russian attaché country. Russia is becoming more isolated and Armenia was among the 10 countries, which stood next to Russia regarding Ukrainian occupation, however, this policy didn’t lead to the fact that Russia became our trusted ally.
A guarantee system should have been established to neutralize such incidents. That guarantee system protects small countries of big countries’ aggression. For instance, Luxemburg army is among the smallest, however, their guarantee system restrains dictators. Armenia didn’t attempt to establish a guarantee system throughout this period by relying on Russia only. Moreover, it could have worked in other period, until Russia’s aggressive behavior with Ukraine, or that of the USA regarding Syrian issue. Russia cannot be a guarantee system, being in conflict with and isolated from the whole world.
– What lessons should Armenia gain and, hereinafter, how should it build its relations with Russia and the West? For instance, the authorities deliver anti-Azerbaijani speeches at PACE, as Armenian diplomacy result.
– I don’t know about those diplomatic platforms, people in Europe do what they consider proper; even people are found, who continue being a friend of Armenia, contrary to its led foreign policy. Issue linked to Russia isn’t the one to make statements and call somebody a traitor. The point is, Armenia’s authorities were building a guarantee system, by making use of possibilities of Russia and structures around it—CSTO, CIS, EEU and etc., also making use of economical devotedness to Russia, as there isn’t a single branch in Armenia, starting from energy, mining and etc., that doesn’t belong to Russia. However, a monopoly dictated by Russia is observed in all these contracts, that we won’t purchase gas from anyone else, won’t have our own gas pipeline, our military cooperation with any third country upon military cooperation is excluded. This means, it’s an alternative defense system, that we don’t have the right to, for instance, purchase defensive arms and military equipment from a third country.
This has uncovered some shortcomings. Spirit of the Armenian soldier didn’t fade, however, military technical shortcomings hindered us to neutralize the threat and not to have so many losses. Is Russia the country that sells us that equipment? If yes, we need to promptly purchase it, if no, we need to apply to third countries, which have passed our route long ago, have big experience to restrain aggressors, e.g. Israel and etc. and if this system with Russia obstacles us to have other military means, we need to talk about it. I don’t intend to make sharp proposals, although formerly I touched upon it, as under this situation any step should be taken accurately.
Neutralization of the threat is the present-day number one issue, as well as thinking of actions parallel to it. We should apply to Russia, saying that this point of the accord hinders us, as from business perspective we may cooperate with other country, and by purchasing military equipment defend our security.
– A proposal is made to withdraw from EEU. In your opinion, should likewise sharp steps be taken—leaving EEU or CSTO?
– Much can be spoken of EEU, we have repeatedly stated that form economic standpoint Armenia is a structure not giving anything. However, in that period, they were claiming we engage with EEU for security purposes as well, and we do it to protect Armenia and Karabakh. Unfortunately, by these examples, people should be convinced, that it’s not a guarantee or a system for security. If there are economic benefits, they should be separated from the military one, and deepen economic field only. Although military support wasn’t enshrined in the document, they were mentioning Serzh Sargsyan talked about it to Putin in the corner, but where is it? Even many people were saying we should be cautious. So, membership to these structures is one mistake, and withdrawal is linked to big difficulties, and we need to act cautiously, as punishment will be big enough, rather than non-membership.
In any case, Russia should understand that there are various opinions in Armenia, and Serzh Sargsyan should speak from stronger positions with Putin. Even cadre changes should be recorded, people of other diplomacy and policy should resign, who refrained S.Sargsyan from his wrong steps. The most crucial point is that it’s impossible to build good policy grounded by insinuation. Russia is not a demon country, it’s possible to work with any country, if you behave worthy.
– The authorities promise systemic reforms, after this war they were touching upon drawing conclusions, however, during the elections held on Sunday in Hrazdan, again bribery mechanism was implemented. What did these elections show?
– An answer is already observed in your question, nothing has changed for now. Comparative less cases of usual audacity I will link to the individual Sasun Mikayelyan, the oppositional candidate, who is a well-known strong person, and possesses enough power and followers able to restrain them. However, in the end, we don’t have such candidates, a person who revived war, saw weapon. However, even in Hrazdan it didn’t work and, obviously, other factors are existent, and non-free expression of people’s will. These people, by solving personal matters, currently already play not only with Armenia’s reputation or authority in international structures, but also with security and more awful things.
By Gayane Khachatryan
