Interview with expert at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London Peter Duncan.
According to some experts, Azerbaijan today has a real reason to hope for Russia’s assistance in solving the Karabakh problem…
Yes, of course. The relationship between Medvedev and Aliyev is a big deterrent to possible military outcome of the conflict. However, we know that war can begin without the will of the parties. In any case, I do not think that Azerbaijan and Armenia will deliberately resume the war.
In your opinion, what is the reason for Russia’s stepped up efforts in settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
I do not think that in this respect we can speak about Russia’s enhanced efforts. Perhaps this is due to the mainstreaming of the issue of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey. In response, Russia tried to use its stronger leverage to resolve this conflict. The presence of this unresolved conflict in the South Caucasus is unprofitable for Russia. It is not in Russia’s interest to have such troubles in the Caucasus, particularly in the Russian part, where there is instability.
During Russian President’s recent visit to Turkey, the sides put much emphasis on problems in the Armenian-Turkish relations and Karabakh conflict settlement and said they intend to make every contribution to address them. In your opinion, may the Russian-Turkish cooperation lead to shifts in solving these problems?
Now there is a growing convergence of interests between Russia and Turkey especially in light of the fact that Turkey took a more critical stance toward America with the beginning of the war in Iraq. Turkey does not have a sufficiently large weight in solving regional problems. In my opinion, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia can be solved mainly due to Russia and the United States. Turkey does not have sufficient leverage in relations with the conflicting parties so that it will achieve shifts with the help of Russia. America’s help is needed here.
What do you link a downturn in U.S. policy in post-Soviet space with? Can we assume that this trend has been removed from the priorities list of the White House foreign policy?
The fact is that the U.S. is involved in addressing two difficult issues in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we should not forget about the situation around Iran. President Obama and his inner circles are also worried about China’s growing influence. I think that the post-Soviet area is not a priority for Obama. He understands that America is already occupied by many problems than it is possible not to mention the economic crisis, which also limits the opportunities of the United States.
Obama believes that Russia, if I may say so, is not part of the problem, but part of the solution, that is, and its better to cooperate with Moscow than compete with it in a geopolitical game in the former Soviet Union. Moreover, there is progress on START and in the Iranian issue between Moscow and Washington.
Russia, taking advantage of the U.S. inactivity, began to play a more active role in the former Soviet Union. Is this true?
Russia is not as much active as the opportunities it has. For example, Yanukovych became head of the state after the presidential elections in Ukraine. In my opinion, this is not the result of Russian policy, but desire of the Ukrainian voters.
/Today.Az/
