https://medium.com/r/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZsdTe-m0x98
‘KARABAKH IS PART OF AZERBAIJAN’ SAYS PUTIN AND MACRON
Below is a summary of Osmanqizi TV program hosted by Dr. Joanne Lisosky and broadcast live 24.11.2020
Guests:
*Alex Raufoglu, U.S.-Azerbaijani journalist
*Dr. Leila Aliyeva, Russian and East European Studies (REES) affiliate, Oxford School of Global and Area Studies University of Oxford
Russian peacekeepers patrol in Karabakh. A thorough review the history of Russian peacekeepers in former Soviet countries offers a bleak picture. One might ask are the Russian peacekeepers actually there to keep a piece of the territory for Russia? What are the concerns in Azerbaijan about the inclusion of Russian peacekeepers in their country?
Alex Raufoglu: Because of the return of the territories we can have a momentary smile in Azerbaijan but Russian peacekeepers are not a positive concept. The presence of Russian peacekeepers has not been sanctioned by the United Nations. The problem is Putin sees these military forces as an instrument of power. Remember this dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia has to do with Azerbaijan who were driven out of NK in the 1990s. What did Russia do or say during that time? Nothing. The Armenian leaders who committed the crimes at that time, became and still are the best friends of Putin… Armenians may have thought back then that they were the winners of the first war. However, they were and still are dependent on Putin’s good will. So that is why the Azeris fear, you can be a short-term winner but at the price of long-term trouble. That is the sense in Azerbaijan.
Why is the Azeri government reaction toward Russian peacekeepers different from the general public in Azerbaijan?
Leila Aliyeva: It really contradicts the very substance or idea of the nation-state building in Azerbaijan. For Azerbaijan the post-Soviet restoration of its independence means first of all departure from colonial dependence from Russia. So it’s a very serious departure of the 30 years of resistance from the basics of Azerbaijani statehood concept. There are some positive developments related to the restoration of the territories, but it happened at a very high cost. And we still have to think how to get out of this situation. Not only is the perception of people back in Baku negative regarding Russia’s role in conflict, but in general Russia’s role in the post-Soviet space.
We also think… the way to prosperity, the way to peace and democracy lies through freedom from Russia and from Moscow. I think Russian peacekeepers already made a few very worrying signals. We know that they arrived early then they started to extend their expected functions, establishing posts where they were not supposed to establish posts. Then bring in in certain types of armaments, which were not supposed to be there and signing the agreement with the Armenian separatists and Armenian Republic. And not signing something similar with the Azerbaijani government. Taking photos with the leader of the separatist regime. So there are a lot of signals that Russia is not going to be peacekeepers but rather the country that re-establishes its control over Azerbaijan. And Putin didn’t even hide this. In his recent interview he hinted Azerbaijan should remember that when Georgians started to shoot our peacekeepers we recognized independence of Ossetia, so he basically showed his plans and didn’t even hide that he plans to implement the same scenario he did in Ossetia and other conflicts. The perception is different among the leaders and the people in Azerbaijan first because the government has always been more sympathetic to Russia than the society and its understandable because of the type of regime we have back home that sees Putin as the protector. (Aliyev) He knows that if he continues to follow these rules he will be ok, moreover he might get guarantees. So he tries not to alienate Putin. He might think that he reconciles the regional contradictions between Russia and Turkey. The problem is he’s doing it on Azeri territory. That is where the contradictions come from between the elites and the mass level.
Some new development in Turkish influence. Just days ago, Turkish Parliament approved Turkish peacekeepers for Azerbaijan. The Associated Press reported: “Turkey and Azerbaijan who regard themselves as one state and two people, will continue to struggle together for their independence and future,” said Ismet Yilmaz, who heads the parliamentary defense committee. “It is our historic and strategic responsibility to ensure that (Turkish troops) take up duty at the joint center to maintain the cease-fire and prevent violations.
Will Turkey be part of the peacekeeping force?
Alex: Turkey was involved from day one. You haven’t seen Turkish foot soldiers on the ground but there has been moral support for Azeri soldiers. Prior to war breaking out there were Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises in the region. While Turkey was a powerful supporter its support wasn’t visible during that miserable night when the agreement was signed among Azerbaijan, Armenian and Russian presidents. That’s a black box for many in the west. Why didn’t we see Turkey behind the table? The Putin interview that was mentioned is very interesting. I am actually more interested in what he didn’t say. For instance, he was trying to sideline Turkey from day one with the Syrian mercenaries’ story. The main source of this information is Russia… also we have a readout from a phone call with Erdogan recently where Putin did raise this mercenary story and Erdogan pushed back. But in the Putin interview, there is no word, no syllable referring to mercenaries. He didn’t talk about that. Why? His disinformation about imaginary mercenaries did work well. He did capture the imagination of the western audience. He also had some strategic allies — NATO allies, turning against Turkey, France was one of the countries that fell into that trap… Russia did a very good job using this disinformation campaign to sideline Turkey — perhaps that is the reason why we didn’t see Turkey as a final peacemaker. But Turkey, in fact, in its parliament recently gave a green light to Turkish military experts to enter Azerbaijan as observers. The best name to highlight this mission. But what will Turkey observe? Will Turkey observe a deal it is not part of? So many questions need to be clarified. Prior to today’s program we had a briefing at the State Department about this morning’s phone call from Washington D.C. to Yerevan with the new foreign affairs minister in Armenia. U.S. is trying to understand what is going on and to see if there is any role left for the Minsk group — Turkey is a member of the Minsk group but not a co-chair. So having Turkey at the table and present in the region is important for the west as well in the peace making purposed. Of course, you hear different statements from U.S. and France due to war time, but now at peace time it is definitely more important having anyone but Russia to maintaining a balance and to make sure that that we are achieving something that will last longer.
Will the Turkish observation force make it harder for the Russia to get together with the separatists and arm and help them?
Leila: Definitely that is the reason why Russia is resisting Turkey. Turkey is a powerful actor, the whole new status quo or conflagration emerged not to the last turn because of Turkey. The problem is that Russia is taken advantage of being accepted, or I heard in its rhetoric, it is accepted by both parties. In the case of Azerbaijan it is only accepted by ruling elites rather than the society on the whole. It’s not exactly the case that Russia is accepted by both parties. But there is another development which might actually be positive for the conflict resolution in the end. It’s the growing anti-Russian sentiment in Armenia. So if these two countries could be closer to each other in terms of their growing unhappiness with Russia, this might set up certain ground for reconciliation especially if the new transportation routes and the opening of the communication routes might get Turkey more involved in this process and maybe in its relationship with Armenia.
Who should be deciding the makeup of the peacekeepers in the region? Minsk group? Azerbaijan? Russia?
Alex: The irony is that all of the actors that you mentioned have in fact decided who should NOT be in the region: Russian peacekeepers. There are principles that were agreed upon, a gentlemen’s agreement, among the Minsk group co-chairs that in no scenario Russia to be peacekeepers in the region. Also remember, Russia never left Armenia. They do have two military bases in Armenia. The fact that Russia, Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents are signing statement that has to do with Azerbaijani territory only, and not Armenia. NK which is part of Azerbaijan. It is something recently being questioned in Azerbaijan. Who let them in and why? What is their role? Where is the basis for that? Russia’s explanation is that we are trying to prevent ethnic cleansing. But hello… there was ethnic cleansing in the region 30 years ago. Where were you back then. I raised this question in the Washington. The answer is that the Azeris didn’t let them in back then. Both Washington and Paris they were not really comfortable with the idea of Russia trying to prevent ethnic cleansing in the territory because they thought Russia would enter and never leave the region. What is going to happen five years from now? Will Azerbaijan stand up and tell Russia, ‘thank you and good bye — we’re done with you’. And Russia would say, ‘yes, we are going to leave the region, I’m sorry for inconvenience.’ But that’s not what Putin does from what we’ve seen in other regions — Georgia, Moldova and other regions. Will Russia try to get Turkey back and get some agreement with Turkey and secure some Turkish peacekeepers. So that Azerbaijan will be happy with peacekeeping mission. But this goes against the Minsk group and the western world “gentlemen’s agreement.” Russia did have an obligation not to enter with military forces. But Putin sees this as an instrument of power to be present in the region. The best case scenario is to bring the west back back to the table and the message should come from the Minsk group that Russia violated the core that all parties agreed upon. Forget about Azerbaijan and Armenia at this point. Azeris are coming back. Armenians are back. Azeris are not engaging in what Armenia did in the past, and that was made clear from Baku. And I see in recent days Armenians are changing. Right now they do feel that there is some room to negotiate. They realize that they lost Shusha and they realize there is a price to pay. Best-case scenario is to bring the west back to the table, to question the Russian presence and to figure out what is going to happen five years from how. The worst-case scenario — given that Russia has such a strong voice in the UN Security Council, Russia will become rotating leader of Security Council next year… and then Russia may be appointed peacekeepers in the region by the U.N.
Should it be the Minsk group to decide on what countries make up the peacekeeping forces?
Leila: The Minsk group was ineffective. It needs to regain authority to be able to do something. It needs to change its format or some principles or something. It can’t remain doing what it used to do. I wonder regarding the Russian peacekeeping, whether the crisis may actually build up before the 5-year term expires and we can’t tell it now. We cannot tell if the Russians may stay as long as five years. They don’t have a legitimate base to stay there. These can be questioned at all levels by civil society and all actors. And also because Russia is violating all the rules of the country it is staying in. It is violating the rules and duties of peacekeepers. It is violating the sovereignty of the country it is staying in. So I anticipate this may lead to a much weaker crisis than we expect. Then we will need crisis management. We will need to come up with an alternative instrument. And Turkey should be part of it. At the moment it is difficult to see a nonpartisan actor in this. You probably noticed that due to illiberal trend, Europe has a bit of biased sympathies. So it will be hard to find an unbiased actor who could be trusted by both parties. This is a serious issue. But ideally, we should come up with a solution between the two countries, which would not even require peacekeeping forces. We should come to some mutually beneficial solution which would satisfy both countries. I am sure they exist. We should try to find the option which would make the necessity of peacekeeping forces very temporary and transitional.
Further questions dealt with Macron’s latest flip flop; Secretary Pompeo’s visit to Georgia and further discussion of Putin’s interview. Please tune in to hear more.
