In general, the building of the security belt is an everlasting, endless process. Countries and peoples are unwilling participants in it, and have to be in the orbit of real action to overcome risks and dangerous trends. From time to time, however, there are actors and forces in international life who, under the guise of participating in the formation of a security climate, produce counter-historical trends in pursuit of corporate or dubious goals. Their efforts create the prerequisites for increased turbulence.
Armenia continues to demonstrate a classic example of destructive involvement, as it has been pursuing a policy of escalation in the region for a number of years. Having lost credibility, it demonstratively undermines the process of dialogue that aims to rid the region of new wars and escalations.
As a result, Irevan challenges not only those neighbors it labels in its national security concept as enemies, but also its strategic ally, Russia.
In a way, turning into a pariah, Armenia does not work to overcome dangerous challenges, but deliberately acts to exacerbate the crisis, diversifying risk factors. It is impossible not to notice how the political leadership, headed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, demonstratively goes against encouraging trends, losing opportunities for stabilization, which, incidentally, are created not by Armenia, but by its neighbors.
So, Armenia is now billing Russia, while Russia has protected it for a long time, creating a security shield for it, and lobbying its interests not only in the capital, but also on international platforms. What happened to make Irevan suddenly turn its back on Moscow and distance itself from it? What did the so-called Western partners use to win its attention, what is Irevan unable to say no to?
Irevan makes a resounding statement that over the past 2-3 months Russia has stopped fulfilling its obligations to Armenia and increasingly lowered the bar of its authority. This, they believe, is tantamount to giving the green light to Azerbaijan’s aggression against the long-suffering nation.
Tales and fables quickly emerge about the Russian Foreign Ministry being all but occupied by Azerbaijani lobbyists, and them ruling in Smolenskaya Square single-handedly and neglecting Irevan’s interests.
Citing third-rate Russian political analysts, Armenian sources take great pleasure in broadcasting their nonsense, describing how Baku rules in Russia’s foreign policy corridors, “pursuing a pro-Western line to the detriment of Russian interests”.
Armchair and homespun political strategists keep squealing that “the blocking of the Lachin road is happening with the tacit consent of the Kremlin,” and that Karabakh is about to go under the jurisdiction of Baku.
Firstly, the Lachin road was and is open. Secondly, Azerbaijan has never avoided dialogue and the trilateral format of discussions on existing problems, and there is no need to blame invented motives for the hopelessness of the situation. Thirdly, Karabakh is a region of Azerbaijan, and its ownership is beyond doubt.
Baku does not care if someone entertains fantasies about the “self-determination” of the handful of Armenians living in this part of Azerbaijan.
Nothing about Armenia’s failed policies across the board, including on foreign frontiers, and within the CSTO in particular, has to do with either Azerbaijan or other countries. Irevan should and must bear responsibility for its actions to all partners and subjects of international law, and the assessment of its line of behavior depends only on the extent to which the Armenian power cluster is able to produce sensible and coherent ideas.
If its moves and proposals undermine security, or meet with the criticism of its allies, which we should note is quite justified, it is Irevan’s fault. It is still far from demonstrating good will toward its neighbors, who, since late 2020, have been continually offering Armenia various formats of interaction and good-neighborliness.
As a rule, Nikol Pashinyan saw his neighbors’ intentions as malicious, so he rejected all the balanced proposals of Baku and Ankara from the outset. And now the Armenians have added Moscow to this chain of their “detractors”, blaming Russia for the growing woes of the unhappy and abandoned country as well.
By building up frenzy around the non-existent Lachin road problem, Armenia is trying to form a new anti-Azerbaijani front. Mistakenly believing that Moscow has teamed up with Baku to squash Armenia, Pashinyan and his associates are drifting away from reality toward the absurd, and as a result, they are backing themselves into a corner.
Pursuing an ill-considered rapprochement with misguided external players, mainly Paris, Irevan now wants to form a bloc of countries that will have to grapple with Russia. This is why Pashinyan flatly refuses to receive the CSTO mission, which is quite realistic about the problem of unblocking the Armenian-Azerbaijani crisis.
Irevan is making the old mistake assuming that since Azerbaijan has more friends within the military-political bloc, although Baku is not a member of this organization, all the decisions and initiatives of the CSTO will be anti-Armenian a priori. But isn’t it ridiculous? How can anyone think so primitively?
An actor interested in the speedy resolution of regional problems, by definition, should not smear and urge others to adopt sanctions against their allies and sparring partners. And yet, what is Armenia doing? That is right, it is calling on the West to impose sanctions not only against Azerbaijan, but also against Russia. What are we to make of all this?
The problem of Armenian diplomacy is that it never learned the art of subtlety, never mastered methods of discreet actions. The mediocrity of its approaches explains its clumsy style.
The Armenians have only themselves to blame for their growing woes: they are sawing off the branch on which they are sitting. No one harms them as painfully and tangibly as they do themselves. Doesn’t Irevan understand that they need to get rid of their inferiority complexes and painful suspicions to be able to start normal relations with other countries? Apparently not.
By adopting the attitude of goodwill, Irevan will be able to recognize the importance of peacefulness in the system of foreign relations, but it has to want that, it has to adapt to that. Before it is too late.
Tofig Abbasov
Translated from Minval.az
