Further tension and casualties should be expected from both sides on the contact line: Grigory Trofimchuk
Interview with Grigory Trofimchuk, foreign affairs, security and defense analyst.
Mr. Trofimchuk, trilateral Nalbandian-Lavrov-Mammadyarov meeting was held in Moscow initiated by Russian FM Sergey Lavrov pursuing the purpose to push forward Artsakh conflict settlement process. It only became clear from the issued statement that agreements reached in Vienna and St. Petersburg have been touched upon. Other details are unknown. In your opinion, which issues have been particularly covered? Is Azerbaijan ready to accept agreements of those meetings?
This was a plenary meeting to show the world, figures following the developments on this conflict zone that in January 2017 negotiations are ongoing after escalation on the contact line. Let me stress, I consider it was the main criterion, although it looks formal. Already the circumstance that foreign ministers of Yerevan and Azerbaijan meet around one table is important, by the way, in Russia, as it’s known by the end of the previous year Mammadyarov appeared with rather sharp assessments, not peculiar to his diplomatic position.
Decision was made to continue contact around Artsakh issue, and it isn’t already bad, as the ministers this time didn’t come out of the room by shutting the door. In any case this is beneficial to Yerevan.
As for Vienna and St. Petersburg agreements, Azerbaijan is ready to accept them like Armenia. Both capitals are ready to accept a range of agreements developed throughout recent years. The point is that those agreements can’t be mostly materialized. For this very reason war is at the door not withdrawing for a centimeter.
Currently at least they should comprehend one point during which year should agreements reached in Vienna and St. Petersburg be implemented? There is no answer to the main question: which side launched 2016 shooting?
Prior to trilateral meeting Baku initiated new tension on the contact line, as a result of which the Armenian side recorded casualties. In parallel with this, information was provided that Russia supplied another group of armaments to Azerbaijan, which by Armenian expert, political circles, ahead of Moscow negotiations, was observed as pressure over the Armenian side. How will you comment on this?
This is the main point. As steps aren’t taken toward agreements reached in Vienna and St. Petersburg, are they? If any side doesn’t bear responsibility for April 2016 and 2017, then the situation on the conflict zone gradually moves in the direction of war, not speaking of frequent mutual shooting. Regular shootings may be regarded as a natural background for this conflict, without which, in fact, passes not a single day. Unfortunately, the organized ministerial meeting in Moscow isn’t capable of eliminating this background. This is the main point, which should concern us and warn, as a question arises: what are those meetings meant for?
Supply of Russian arms to Azerbaijan in its direct sense isn’t supply, but ordinary arms sales for money. The supply is, when the partner provides armaments free for victory. Moreover, this can’t be qualified as pressure over Armenia, as it seems a rather complicated scheme, to which I consider, the sides aren’t capable. Russia may express its own issue, even discontent to Armenia more simply.
However, the issue is different here. Without any doubt Yerevan will observe any Russian arms sales to Azerbaijan as a non-friendly step. The more weapons are sent to Azerbaijan, the sharper Yerevan’s posture will be. As Yerevan doesn’t consider whether it’s for money or for nothing. Finally, those arms shoot in the direction of Armenians. Under this condition this is the main issue.
What issue did the meeting in Moscow resolve? To your mind, was progress recorded in negotiations? If expectations of the sides aren’t justified and progress isn’t recorded what should be anticipated on the contact line after this meeting?
Progress isn’t recorded and it can’t be, as it’s impossible leaving aside April 2016. No one today—April 2016 gave assessment to what happened. Let me repeat that in such cases the fact of meeting should be considered a progress, i.e. even one photo of three ministers in one room.
For this very reason further escalation and casualties should be expected from both sides. And this—in the best case.
By Araks Martirosyan
