“Statement by Pushkov means that we’re getting involved in NATO-Russia contrast, why should Armenia become a part?”

Interview with Stepan Grigoryan, Head of Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation (ACGRC).

Mr. Grigoryan, for the first time on official level the Russian side uncovered the purpose of Armenia-Russia joint troops stating on the third party, although it’s enshrined in the document that the troops won’t be directed to a third party. However, yesterday Aleksey Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the State Duma, stated that the joint troops don’t create issues for Azerbaijan, moreover, in his words, creation of joint troops is a reasonable step, as Armenia borders a country, which is a NATO member. What does this statement by Pushkov mean?

I have repeatedly reflected to this issue stating a few circumstances. Firstly, I consider Armenia-Russia joint troops are established against Georgia’s possible membership to NATO, i.e. joint troops may be used if Georgia’s membership to NATO becomes a reality, which seriously bothers Russia and it has repeatedly stated on it. If Georgia becomes a NATO member country, there will be powers here, through which Russia will finally be able to exert pressure over Georgia.

Secondly, naturally Turkey’s issue is existent as well, which is a NATO member. On account of this, it’s clear that by establishment of those troops Russia pursues certain interests—it intends to militarily strengthen its positions in the region through Armenia. This component is available here. I really observe Russian interest in establishment of joint troops, it’s obvious that there is an intention to increase military influence in our region.

Third crucial interest is the following—Russia establishes joint troops to control a part of Armenia’s sovereign army, as it convinced by the April war that Armenian army is a sovereign factor. This statement by Pushkov is an edifice. Despite allegations joint troops haven’t been established to support and provide security of the people of Armenia. Currently Armenia’s main threat comes from Azerbaijan, and we see that the Russian official rather openly says that Azerbaijan doesn’t need to bother, as it isn’t directed against Azerbaijan.

As you stated, this issue has been touched upon on a high level. Shouldn’t the Armenian side, our diplomacy reflect, clarify this statement, as by this Armenia is being engaged in Russia-NATO confrontation and is becoming a party?  Isn’t this dangerous for a country like Armenia?

I don’t observe the job of diplomacy, the Foreign Ministry here. I consider it’s the issue of the defense ministry, our political leadership, elite. Firstly, prior to the signing of the agreement they should have stated why joint troops are being established, what issues it’ll settle, they needed to clarify, that it isn’t being established against NATO, but to defend people of Armenia from Azerbaijani attacks, they should have officially clarified or they should do it now. I don’t consider that MFA should do it. As much as I know that document was signed on the level of defense ministers of Armenia and Russia, thus, the political elite should make a statement, or the defense ministry should do it.

I see Russia’s interest in this process, let them announce, explain which Armenia’s interest is in this, as our authorities were insisting that this will provide security of the people of Armenia, let them open the brackets: what do they mean by saying security? Who should they defend us from—Georgia, Iran Turkey? Presently I don’t see threats from Turkey, Iran and Georgia. Turkey has so many issues and is busy with them, we only have a threat from Azerbaijan. If the joint troops don’t defend us from that threat, why is it being established?

Our political elite should record, as we hear likewise statements by a rather serious official. It’s rather dangerous for Armenia, by this they engage us in NATO-Russia contrast. Why should we become a part of that process? What connection do we have with that? I don’t exclude either that tomorrow Russia may wish to use the troops in other directions—Middle East and etc., we don’t need that at all.

I consider that this statement should record, first and foremost, the political elite on the highest level—the president, head of the leading political party, there should be a reflection on such a level, as the statement was heard by the Chairman of the Russian State Duma (SD) on Foreign Affairs.

In your opinion how can NATO reflect to this statement and how will it perceive Armenia’s this role if the latter doesn’t clarify the issue? How will this be reflected in Armenia-NATO relations?

I don’t consider that NATO will perceive this statement rather painfully. This isn’t a serious issue to them. Naturally, they’ll pay attention to it, but they won’t reflect, as the joint troops need to be established, they should function, and it isn’t yet known how the documents will work and whether it’s directed against NATO. They will be led by the official document.

I don’t consider that they’ll reflect, however, they’ll follow the developments. You know that we work productively with NATO, they always state that Armenia’s membership to NATO doesn’t obstacle NATO-Armenia relations. Concrete steps should be taken, so that they reflected to it, I don’t consider that it’ll be so quickly.

By Araks Martirosyan