Seyed Mehdi Hosseini Taqiabadi, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, saying that Pashinyan came to power as a Western-oriented figure in 2018, added: Although he overthrew Sarkisian with the slogan of fighting corruption, he also took advantage of issues related to Karabakh in his political campaign, the most obvious of which was his appearance and clothing during his presence at the head of street protests. He, who in the past, was one of the close associates of President Ter-Petrosyan, the pro-Western president of Armenia, in practice proved that he belongs to a spectrum in Armenia that, with a critical view, considers the country hostage to the Karabakh issue.
While explaining the process that led to the return of Karabakh and its seven surrounding cities by the Republic of Azerbaijan, the expert on the Caucasus issues described Russia’s position and performance towards those developments as an excuse for Pashinyan to distance himself from Moscow further and bring the country’s public opinion together to advance the policy of getting closer to the West.
He considered Pashinyan’s non-participation in the meeting of the heads of mutually beneficial countries in Bishkek and the Collective Security Treaty in Minsk in the fall of this year, and his statements, such as calling Armenia’s security reliance solely on Russia as a mistake, a week before the joint exercise with the United States, and also stating that Armenia has no longer a solid reason to continue security cooperation with Russia, at the same time of handing over Karabakh to Baku, as one of the examples of this process.
He reminded that although Russia has an important part of Armenia’s infrastructure, such as railways, gas, and electricity, under its own supervision and has a military base in Armenia, it has many limitations in regulating Pashinyan’s behavior. Moscow is acting with care regarding Pashinyan, and Pashinyan is aware of such calculations and considerations.
The former head of the Caucasus Studies Foundation, while recalling that France and the United States did not provide practical support to Armenia during the period when Armenia lost control over seven peripheral cities and Nagorno-Karabakh, and Washington only in recent months and after the definitive control of Azerbaijan over Karabakh and major displacement of the Armenian population of Karabakh put media and diplomatic pressure on Baku, reminded that simultaneously with the 10-day show of military maneuver that was held in Armenia with the presence of 85 Americans and 175 Armenians from September 11, 2023, the Republic of Azerbaijan, conducting a one-day military operation on September 19, restored its sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh, and although according to the Baku government, it was scenario “B” that was carried out in return for cutting the Syunik barrier, the fact was that the failure to implement scenario “A” had nothing to do with the American maneuver and was caused by the red lines announced by the Islamic Republic of Iran based on not accepting the change of international borders and continuation of Tehran’s principled policy in support of the territorial integrity of both northern neighbors.
Hosseini, referring to the visit of the British officials to the Caucasus, who are considered as Baku’s long-standing and first-rate partner on the one hand, and the other hand have shown will to promote cooperation with Yerevan, stated: Intensification of the movements of the Westerners, including the Americans, the British and the French, in the South Caucasus with the centrality of the Baku-Yervan reconciliation, in a situation where Russia’s presence and focus on the region has decreased, has been accompanied by a kind of synergy between the policies of Aliyev and Pashinyan as if it is aimed at creating a Western axis in the region and in the form of peace that the Westerners want the initiative to be in their own hands.
Stating that the intentions are aimed at limiting Russia and Iran, he pointed to the presentation of the so-called “intersection of peace” map by Pashinyan at the Tbilisi Silk Road Summit. He considered it an unconstructive action by Pashinyan.
Emphasizing that Iran has a firm position regarding the so-called Zangezor Corridor and its geopolitical limitation and does not hide it, Hosseini noted that Tehran does not tie its red lines to individuals.
Saying that Pashinyan has lost ground and failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, he reminded that he made reforms similar to Saakashvili in the fight against corruption. At the same time, we are witnessing economic openings inside Armenia. Money is being spent in that country, and unprecedented constructions are taking place, showing a flow of finance and support.
Noting that Russia, which until recently saw the construction of the so-called Zangezor Corridor as an opportunity to take advantage of it in the current situation where its route to the West is limited as a result of the Ukraine war, realized the serious will of the West to dominate this axis and Tehran’s concerns in especially the upcoming scenarios. Moscow has openly criticized Pashinyan’s policy of distancing himself from Russia-centered security-military arrangements and his desire to use the economic benefits of membership in the Eurasian Economic Union and describes it as sitting on two chairs at the same time on the part of the Yerevan government.
Hosseini stated that the tension we witnessed in the apparent relations between Washington and Baku is different from what is happening in the field. The practical relations between the two sides referred to the visit of James O’Brien, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, to Baku and the recent agreement between Baku and Yerevan.
The expert on Caucasus affairs said that the Russian president also has a historical perspective of the events; as Putin said on the day after the Prigozhin coup, that coup is a reminder of what happened in the First World War; we were on the verge of victory, a revolution took place and we lost the victory in the First World War… Therefore, we can assume that the Russians see the current situation in the Caucasus as similar to 1918-1921 when three states were established in the vacuum after the collapse of the Tsarist Empire. Baku became the center of influence of the British and the young Turks, Yerevan was the center of French influence, and Tbilisi was the center of German activities. Still, the Bolsheviks soon annexed all three to their territory and expelled the Europeans. Moscow probably assesses that it still holds most of the leadership in the Caucasus. Still, there is no doubt that in this uproar of foreign interventions, formats such as three plus three, which is a previous initiative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, are the most suitable for solving the problems of the Caucasus, an initiative similar to which, in the form of Astana’s initiative to solve the Syrian crisis, became the most successful format.
No comments:
Post a Comment