Nagorno-Karabakh conflict freeze

Yekaterina Tesemnikova, exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza

Only a scoffer could doubt the necessity of an early settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Reasonable people understand that a bad peace is better than a good war. However, sometimes we can see in the mass media that some forces benefit from the conflict being frozen, even though it is difficult to call the Karabakh conflict “frozen” – fire-fights continue, saboteurs or “saboteurs” are captured, and people die.

We have many times heard that the status quo in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is beneficial for Moscow, which artificially reinforces the situation in order to control the political elites of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

However, it is more about some fixation of the political reality till a compromise decision which would satisfy either Baku or Yerevan appears or the balance of forces is broken and one of the sides gets a military or diplomatic victory.

A “thaw” of the conflict would be beneficial for Moscow, if it means a change of the settlement format. In the context of the Ukrainian events, Moscow hints at attempts by its opponents to destabilize the situation in the South Caucasus and the North Caucasus in the future.

This year is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Bishkek Protocol on a ceasefire between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In January Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated: “The main thing is that the sides should agree on the principles which will be a basis for the settlement. We cannot do this work for them. Together with America and France we encourage both sides, we are ready to present ideas for consideration by Baku and Yerevan. But the last word is theirs.” And in June during his visit to Baku Lavrov called for the process to be sped up: “The sooner we agree on practical steps which would improve the situation and shift to a stable settlement, the better it will be for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the whole Caucasus region.”

The Karabakh issue is the reason for the postponement of signing documents on Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Economic Union. According to Lavrov, Nagorno-Karabakh “is a subject of international talks which are being provided, according to principles which are agreed on by the sides. Armenia has already stated it will participate in the WTO within borders which are recognized by the UN, and that it doesn’t claim any other borders. The same concerns the Eurasian Economic Union.”

The position by Moscow caused a growth of anti-Russian attitudes in Armenia; they are easily stirred up in the context of the difficult socio-economic situation. Yerevan always expects more from Moscow, but it is difficult for Russia, which has no common border with Armenia, to provide Yerevan’s security without serious financial expenditure. So a settlement of the Karabakh problem would enable Moscow to spend fewer resources on Gyumri, where the Russian military base is situated.

As for Nagorno-Karabakh itself, the status quo in the conflict is the main obstacle for reconstruction of its infrastructure. According to certain data, Armenia, which controls its own territory, is placed only 115th in the world according to GDP and purchasing power parity. A settlement of the conflict would eliminate Armenia’s economic isolation and revive its direct economic relations with Azerbaijan. And building normal relations with the leading country of the region, Azerbaijan, is beneficial both to Moscow and Yerevan.

Baku considers the problem categorically: “A vague settlement of the issue can be only a stage,” Ilham Aliyev says. “The Armenian people could live in a status of high autonomy in the Azerbaijani state. We offer this and the approach is based on the most positive experience in the world and Europe.”