Ruben Safrastyan: U.S. will keep its role of security guarantor in Europe with or without Britain

Was the Turkish president’s letter to his Russian counterpart the beginning or maybe the result of the talks between the two countries? What was the reason behind that U-turn in Ankara’s policy?    

Erdogan's letter to President of Russia Putin was the result of reconsideration of Turkey's policy of the recent years in the Middle East and particularly in Syria. I have repeatedly described the policy of Erdogan and Ahmet Davutogly towards making Turkey into a big power in the region as adventurism, considering that Turkey has never had the necessary potential, authority etc. The gap between its goals and opportunities was very big. Eventually, that policy has driven Turkey to the brink of a big geopolitical defeat in the region, and in Syria, first. That is exactly why Ankara started exerting efforts towards restoration of its strained relationships with Russia and Israel. It was not by accident that these two processes were initiated simultaneously. There are geopolitical reasons behind Erdogan's actions.  In this light, the content of Erdogan's letter of apology or condolences is of no importance, as the letter was preceded with long diplomatic talks of Turkey with Russia and Israel behind the scene. Erdogan's letter was the result of the talks, and not the beginning for them.

Since last November, when Turkey’s air force downed a Russian warplane over Syria, the two countries have burnt bridges. Is it possible to restore all? 

Yet before the crisis in their relations, Russia and Turkey had been geo-strategic rivals and their interests did not coincide in the Middle East and South Caucasus. Nevertheless, they had good trade and economic relations and looked to boost cooperation

in the field. Therefore, they will try to restore their economic cooperation and only afterwards they will try to find ways for

geopolitical rapprochement. It is unlikely that the trade and economic relations of Turkey and Russia will be restored to the previous level in the mid-term outlook.

St.Petersburg meeting demonstrated Russia’s increased positions in the Karabakh peace process in the post-April period. In this light, Moscow has agreed to restore its relations with Turkey. This made many Armenian experts and politicians once again remember the year 1921. What do you about this all?  

I do not think that recurrence of 1921 is possible under current conditions. We all saw Moscow's stand during Russia's mediation in the Karabakh conflict settlement and during the period preceding the crisis in its relations with Turkey. We perfectly saw that at that time Ankara also failed to significantly influence Moscow's stand in that matter. In this light, I think the new period of normalization of the Russian-Turkish relations poses no threat to Armenia or Artsakh. Karabakh is still a part of geo-strategic rivalry between these countries.  Consequently, Russia and Turkey can have no common stand on Karabakh.       

Nor Russia and U.S. can…

I do not think the United States and Russia seriously consider the possibility of a geopolitical collision in the matter of Karabakh. I do not think they have obviously contradicting interests in this matter. The Karabakh conflict settlement has not yet entered the phase of decision making on certain issues. The talks are still underway. Washington and Moscow have a consensus on it. But the phase of decisions is yet to come. 

Do you see the refugee flow from Middle East behind Brexit?

I think the migrant problem is just one of the many problems behind the referendum in Britain. It appears to me that the process launched by Britain will have a continuation.  do not think that Britain’s ‘divorce’ from EU will be a quiet process. Contradictions inside the EU over Brexit will be just growing, since some forces in Europe seek to restore sovereignty of the countries. I am speaking about France, first. 60% of the population in France is looking to leave the EU, according to public opinion polls. In this sense, Jean-Marie Le Pen is not an ordinary politician. Globally, we have entered a period when most of the population on the Earth openly doubts the political establishment and the system of political relations in their countries. The Arab Spring was part of this big problem that is emerging in the West too. It was because of those doubts that Donald Trump has become a presidential contender in U.S.

United Kingdom’s decision to leave may in a strange way strengthen the European Union. And there are enough reasons for this...     

 There is such a point of view and it has real foundation. However, in my point of view the ruling classes of the leading European powers, particularly Germany represented by Angela Merkel, social-democrats and “greens” will continue to consider the USA as the only guarantor of security of Western and Central Europe amid heightened perception of Russian threat. That is why with or without the United Kingdom the USA will keep its role of guarantor of Europe’s security.

 What was for you Pope Francis’ visit to Armenia?

 This is a very interesting and multi-layered question as the visit itself. Pope’s statement that he arrives in Armenia as a pilgrim, testifies that Armenia is perceived by the civilized world as a country that has a certain mission in the history of mankind. The Pope’s visit to the first Christian country of the world had an emphasized civilizational component. He also tried to use his visit for political purposes aimed at reaching historical justice in his understanding. It was for this reason he once again used the word genocide. And finally, Pope Francis called the entire region for mutual understanding, peace and friendship. As a result, I see four aspects of Pope’s visit to Armenia: civilizational, religious, restoration of historical justice and regional one.

 Does Vatican play any role in world politics nowadays?

I think it does and not only as the residence of the leader of all Catholics, but also as an institute of contemporary system of international relations. In this light I am more than sure that Pope Francis’ visit to Armenia will have a positive impact first and foremost in the issue of international recognition of the Genocide. But for this reason we ourselves should use Pope’s visit in order to promote our country on the international platform aimed at raising Armenia’s awareness in our diverse world.