Manvel Sargsyan: Armenia due to reconsider fundamentally its 20-year-long policy towards Russia

Baku addressed a message to the UN. The core of the message comes down to Azerbaijan's refusal from the Ceasefire Agreement of 1994 with Yerevan and Stepanakert and an aspiration to act on the basis of the oral arrangements made in Moscow by the chiefs of the General Staffs of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Armed Forces. Azerbaijan addressed UN after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in Yerevan that Moscow does not consider the 'four-day war' as a reason to replace the existing ceasefire agreements with new ones. All this means that there are at least serious disagreements in the stands of Russia and Azerbaijan. What do you think about this?

Actualization of the tripartite agreements on ceasefire having no time limitation signed by Yerevan, Stepanakert, and Baku in 1994 is a consequence of the "four- day war."  Armenia and the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have reaffirmed their stands after the April war saying that the legal basis for the settlement is the documents signed in 1994 and 1995. Afterwards, Sergey Lavrov actualized the mechanisms of inquiring into incidents on the Line of Contact. 

Stemming from the statements by Harlem Desir, French Secretary of State for European Affairs, made in Yerevan and a bunch of statements from the United States, Sargsyan said the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have a consensus concerning the issue of introducing mechanisms to inquire into incidents on the Line of Contact in Karabakh…

Well, before the April war, Moscow did not state about it, at least, openly. The open statement on the need to introduce these mechanisms is the second important moment after the co-chairs' statement that the documents of 1994-1995 remain the basis for the settlement. Baku could not but refuse from the tripartite agreements, after the Minsk Group, and Russia, first, have actualized them, as this has changed everything. The most important is that this cast a doubt on the actual transformation of the Karabakh peace process into the two-sided format since 1998," the analyst said.

In other words, Baku has not received dividends by unleashing the April aggression?

The past few years' policy of Azerbaijan that Baku qualifies as military diplomacy has brought that country to a big political stalemate. By expanding the scale of clashes on the line of contact, Baku made the Armenian army adopt a new doctrine, which can briefly be described as a punitive doctrine to suppress the adversary. This was told to the world and the world understood it, which it demonstrated with its silence.    

The transition of the Armenian armed forces to the practical steps of implementation of this doctrine in August 2014 put Azerbaijan in a very hard situation. Due to the war unleashed by Azerbaijan, Baku might lose its own infrastructure. The only mechanism of pressure Baku thought to be effective backfired on it in both military and political terms. This became possible as a result of the Armenian military leadership's competent step based on the generally accepted approach. In such a situation, Baku had nothing to do but turn the chessboard upside down to stop that trend.

Today we see the political consequences of that step...

The thing is that it is very dangerous to break the situation with such desperate steps. We saw what followed a similar desperate step of Turkey - the downing of the Russian plane - after the deployment of Russian servicemen in Syria. I think the same has happened to Azerbaijan in a sense.  By using the Sarsang provocation at PACE, Baku tried to come out of the desperate situation through a blitzkrieg. As a result, the political factor of Karabakh has abruptly risen and the European Parliament has started discussing the issue of recognition of the NKR's independence. The countries that promoted the Sarsang resolution were blamed for provoking the April war. And the most important thing is that the trilateral ceasefire treaty of 1994-95 has been clearly reanimated. Therefore, politically Azerbaijan has lost. What will happen next is not known yet.

What about the military field?

The main military consequence for Baku is the destruction of Azerbaijani tanks in all directions of their attack on Artsakh.

It is no wonder that Aliyev started speaking of a truce on April 3.  This was done right after the adversary started suffering a defeat. Before that they did not even suppose that they might face such a situation. Therefore, the tanks, which were not destroyed, were immediately pulled back at a safe distance. The only way out of this situation for Baku was to request Moscow to stop the counteroffensive of the NKR Defense Army. By requesting Russia to save Azerbaijan from defeat, Baku assumed huge obligations and a huge debt. This is where Azerbaijan lost the war for the second time. However, it still holds control over some Karabakh positions. He thinks that the key demand of Armenia and the NKR will be the return of those positions under the trilateral agreements on timeless ceasefire.    

Such demands are not being voiced yet…

This does not mean, however, that they will not be voiced in the future. If Azerbaijan fails to return the line of contact to the level of 1994 voluntarily, Yerevan and Stepanakert will get a legal opportunity to retrieve it in a military way.  This is why the Armenian side demands that the OSCE Minsk Group should qualify Azerbaijan as an aggressor. Aggression should be punished.

Certainly, no one hurries to do it yet…

This is real politics. The rest depends on our capabilities to conduct our own policy.

The fact of dismissal of three generals of the Armenian armed forces demonstrates the mistakes of our leadership.

The authorities looked very silly when they were asked primitive questions. What does it mean - we knew that the adversary was preparing to launch an offensive, but we did not know the precise direction? We are living in XXI century. Such statements demonstrate not only incompetence but also political negligence. Afterwards, when asked about the reasons of cessation of hostilities when the Armenian positions were under the adversary's control, their reply was even sillier - they said that they wanted to stop bloodshed.

Is there any reasonable explanation of why Armenia agreed to the ceasefire jus on April 5?

 Armenia gave its consent to truce with Azerbaijan on April 5, and it met other states' interests. Russia stopped the Armenian counteroffensive in order to present some positions to Azerbaijan and impose new debts on Baku. So, Moscow is holding Baku in strong military and political arms. Our authorities' consent to such a combination means that their actions did not stem from Armenia's interests.  This issue has already put them in a complicated situation. This is why generals are being dismissed. It was necessary to find someone to shift the blame to. As regards Russia, it has certainly defended its own interests in the region at the expense of Armenia.

What are the key conclusions from the “four-day war”?

It is impossible to think in XXI century the way one thought in XX century. It is very dangerous. The political component of the wars of XXI century is so high that it should constantly be kept in mind. Today it is possible to hold the positions on the battlefield by means of political decisions only. It is possible to seize a small piece of territory in a military way, but it is impossible to hold it without any political decision.        

Amid external pressure, wars are making such countries as Armenia and Azerbaijan rather dependent on the external factors. The provision of the right to use weapons is becoming a very serious factor, because by shooting once, one can lose everything the way Turkey did. Azerbaijan has been provided with such a right by everyone. Azerbaijan received that right but then was driven into a corner. This becomes obvious when the political consequences of the April war are analyzed.

Why does the West need to “drive Azerbaijan into Russia’s area of influence”?

The West instigated Azerbaijan to unleash a war not only by means of the Sarsang resolution. Aliyev took that unreasonable decision in Washington. The details are not known. But that's not the point. The point is that the war and the politics in XXI century should be considered from this very angle. Otherwise, one can make a single inconsiderate step and lose everything.

The problem is that Armenia and Artsakh were pawns in that game, a kind of bait for Aliev waiting with wide-open mouth. We have lost one hundred of young men and continue to suffer casualties. What policy must Armenia wage not to be used by others? 

A sovereign policy! If Russia were not sure in its power to stop the April war at the right time no war would happen 

A large-scale war with unclear outcome will become a real disaster for Russia, won’t it?

A wide scale war with equivocal outcome will become a catastrophe for Russia and not only for Russia but for everyone. Armenia becomes a pawn only when some strongly believe that they have 100% leverages.  Otherwise Russia would not bring itself to it. If our MPs accused PACE parliamentarians prior to the adoption of Sarsang resolution and not after it Europeans would never dare to adopt it.

Guarantee of a real sovereignty is independent political thought and cherished sovereign policy. And this relates not only to Armenia but also to any state. And the resources for establishing this sovereignty are in the internal state of mind, program and heads of the people. There are no small and big factors in politics there is a certain subject with its role in the international relations. There are no small or big roles. The roles are not equivalent but their significance in international processes is established by the country itself and nobody else.

That is, we are creating our role wrongly…

No, we are creating it quite well, though we are not satisfied with it, which is good. Armenia needs a policy, which will force the adversary to think 100 times before firing. And the new Armenian Defense Doctrine is the best evidence of the successfulness of this thesis.

It is the right way to destroy the permanently threatening Azerbaijani tanks on the border with Karabakh?  

It is necessary to assure everyone that for example destroying Azerbaijani tanks on the border with Karabakh is right, the same way they have assured everyone that the new Armenian Defense Doctrine is right. By finding a decision and convincing everyone in its rightfulness it will be possible to implement it.

Aliyev convinced everyone in necessity of a new aggression against Karabakh. After this he mired deeper in Russian bog…

The question is whether his decision was considered and right. I think it has not been thoroughly considered. And he has understood it only when his tanks started to burn like matches. But he was thinking in terms of cold war expecting that Armenians will run away as soon as they see the first Azerbaijani tank.

Actually what we have now is Serzh Sargsyan’s refusal from the talks with Azerbaijan before there are guarantees that the ceasefire of 1994 will be strongly observed, Baku’s traditional response “we will kill, burn, win back,” and so far silent mediators. What we are going towards? 

We are going towards reconsideration of the 20-year-long policy of Armenia. The April war wiped up the myths the country’s policy was build upon and pointed at the real state of affairs. We must build our new policy on the present-day realities. We have a bunch of treaties with our strategic ally Russia and we hoped that all those treaties will work when there is need for it. But they didn’t. Our alliance with Russia was a myth. It is time to build new relations with Russia – a country that has fundamental problems in its relations with neighbors Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. Before the conflict with Turkey, all those problems were settled, but after the conflict, Russia has faced a huge threat on its borders with those countries. Today, all these countries want to destroy Armenia and demand Russia not to hold them from that. That is why the allied relations with Armenia have turned into a terrible headache for Russia. It is on their demand that Russia sells weapons to Baku for billions of dollars, and has not supplied to Armenia weapons for even 200 million dollars. It is necessary to set aside all the commitments that impede Armenia’s normal relations with other countries. It is necessary to refuse from that bunch of commitments unilaterally, because Russia has a guilt before its ally and cannot say why it is playing against its ally.

The problem is that Moscow does not comprehend all these nuances. They as usually refuse to talk to Armenia on equal terms and order it to “sit and keep silent!” 

Well, Moscow has led the situation to a point when it is senseless to sit and keep silent. Previously, we were frightened.  Now, they have nothing to frighten us with. If they could, they would cede Karabakh to Azerbaijan long ago.  Karabakh is Russia’s only mechanism of restraint on Azerbaijan. They may cut off our gas, and we will import it from Iran. Russia has nothing to blackmail us with. It cannot destroy its only mechanism of pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia has just started to understand that cooperation of Armenia and the West is in their favor, as Armenia is turning into more powerful mechanism for Russia’s policy. 

Do you mean the policy towards Azerbaijan and Turkey? 

Sure, they have begun to understand this. At least, look at Yerevan’s free relations with NATO and the separate NATO countries, at Serzh Sargsyan’s statements in Berlin. Hardly it is in favor of Russia that the West recognizes Karabakh while it does not do it. Armenians have been a 25-year-old mechanism of Russia’s relations with Turkic countries. Moscow cares for that mechanism more than for all those countries taken together. We must play our role clearly understanding all these things. Unfortunately, we do not understand that logic and continue selling our rights. We think that by selling our rights we will be protected. This has been the basis of Armenia’s policy of the last 25 years. Armenia needs to return to normal political logic and understand that politics is a fight for rights and not their sale. Armenia has once again bargained the Karabakh posts with Russia, which was another display of that shameful policy.