As a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the U.S. hopes to organize a meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan in the near future, according to U.S. Ambassador John Heffern’s comment in Yerevan about escalation of tensions on the contact line. The majority of experts say that the only serious player capable of resolving the conflict fast is Russia, which has good ties with Yerevan and Baku. Russian ex-Ambassador to Yerevan Vyacheslav Kovalenko (2009-2013) expressed his point of view in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
- What do you think is the core Russian-Armenian relations were built around after the collapse of the USSR, what brings Russia and Armenia together today?
- The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of national states, including Armenia, could not break the ties of the economic, cultural, human and everyday life levels existing between our peoples in Soviet times. It could not be overturned instantly. The inertia of relations, ties remained. Including the system that remained of specialization of labour and of industry tied into a common network in the Soviet Union, although many industrial enterprises stopped finding their partners and were forced to close down.
They were replaced with labour migration – people started leaving. The entire development of the Russian economy and arising demands for a labour force got new forms of development. Nonetheless, the most important thing is that the ties remained. This is one side. Another side is the conflict that appeared on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, it was stopped solely by Russia, frozen. Russia was one of the main participants of the negotiation process that the U.S. and France joined within the framework of the Minsk Group.
- Considering the complicated situation in economy and the living standards of the majority of the Armenian population, is there a guarantee for closer relations between Armenia and Russia than between the West and Turkey, can Armenia drift West of Turkey, if given better cooperation terms?
- I agree with the presentation of the problem. Of course, the traditional policy of Armenia was complementary, it implied support of friendly, beneficial ties with Russia and all countries of the world that Armenia has diplomatic relations with. One of the goals of the ties was the creation of guarantees for security enforcement, also in the context of frozen military actions in Karabakh.
The complementary policy oriented Armenia toward declarative statements about joining the European Union. For a very long time, Armenia was preparing documents, it has done great work to sign the association agreement with support of Western experts, experts of the European Union.
But at the last moment, at the meeting on September 3 [2013], President Sargsyan declared the readiness of Armenia to sign the agreement to join the Customs Union. It was the result of a very hard struggle between two parties, elite groups, one of them oriented toward the EU, representing Westernism, the other was committed to forming closer ties with Russia. As a result, Armenia was ready to sign the agreement on the Customs Union and actively work within the framework of development of the Eurasian Economic Union.
It was indeed a very hard struggle for influence on public opinion, because westerners, representatives of western states, were very harsh: there or here. Collaboration here and there was ruled out. Armenia chose Russia.
- How do you think relations between Russia and Armenia will change after settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Could settlement, in other words a lifting of the economic blockade, the return of refugees, the lifting of the threat of war, become a guarantee of prosperity of the region, and a guarantee of strengthening of the position and role in the Caucasus for Russia?
- It is hard to imagine a model of settlement of the Karabakh conflict, because the positions of the sides are opposing, they have not become any closer to each other in all these years, but a compromise is visible. The OSCE Minsk Group operates, offers options, but the positions remain the same. Emphasis is placed on forming some balance in the military potential between the two countries, in their standoff. This holds back the start of military actions, in my opinion, because both sides understand that a war would be destructive. The military potentials are about the same, despite the growing purchases of weapons by Baku. Maybe the Armenians are losing in the quantitative aspect, but in qualitative terms, the balance keeps them at peace, not war. A settlement process may happen on a geopolitical scale, though some other, internal political, internal economic conditions may arise. Will they benefit one country or another? There are many variants.
- Would Armenia benefit from a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
- Of course. It is a national priority for Armenia, just as for Azerbaijan, because not a single government in Armenia or Azerbaijan can start attending any negotiations or make any serious concessions at the negotiations.
A settlement may happen as a result of economic development, formation of an economic zone, a common market, when economic ties are be so intertwined that people will prioritize the interests and propagandize, agitate, form a public opinion that would gradually transform from hostility to mutual trust.
- How important is settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for Russia, in the context of aggravating economic and political ties with the West? Could a South Caucasus free from the conflict become a reliable ally of Russia?
- It has always been important for Russia, not only in the context of aggravating relations with the West today. The fewer hot spots there are on the Russian perimeter, the better for Russia. What are the U.S. and the EU trying to get? They want hot spots to cause additional problems for the development of Russia, its economic growth, its prosperity, the rise of welfare, the development of the country, its transformation into a powerful world state. They are all distractive moments that need great resources, attention, need concessions made to certain countries that have influence in the region. It is a global issue, where the Karabakh conflict has its value, plays the role of some factor or destabilization of the situation, additional difficulties for Russia. So, of course, Russia is very interested in finding a solution, creates significant conditions to avoid it, but we cannot see it yet.
- In your evaluation, what is the impact of the Armenian diaspora, especially the one living in the West, on relations between Russia and Armenia?
- There is influence. But Armenia is primarily interested in gaining finances, financial aid, because every year the president and the catholicos visit other countries inhabited by large, rich Armenian communities – in France, the U.S., Latin American states. They collect money there.
In addition, the government pays special attention to the influence of Armenian communities (especially in the U.S. and France, where they are quite rich) in the formation of a pro-Armenian world public opinion on the Karabakh problem and condemnation of the genocide. These two priority issues are the basis of Armenian foreign policy and the formation of Armenian opinions.
On the other hand, recent financial support – I mean charity – from the West is dropping. It is hard for me to tell why. It is either due to disappointment with the foreign or the internal policy of Armenia, or the influence of foreign forces on the Armenian community in France or the U.S. It is either one or the other.
says Vyacheslav KovalenkoAs a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the U.S. hopes to organize a meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan in the near future, according to U.S. Ambassador John Heffern’s comment in Yerevan about escalation of tensions on the contact line. The majority of experts say that the only serious player capable of resolving the conflict fast is Russia, which has good ties with Yerevan and Baku. Russian ex-Ambassador to Yerevan Vyacheslav Kovalenko (2009-2013) expressed his point of view in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.- What do you think is the core Russian-Armenian relations were built around after the collapse of the USSR, what brings Russia and Armenia together today?- The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of national states, including Armenia, could not break the ties of the economic, cultural, human and everyday life levels existing between our peoples in Soviet times. It could not be overturned instantly. The inertia of relations, ties remained. Including the system that remained of specialization of labour and of industry tied into a common network in the Soviet Union, although many industrial enterprises stopped finding their partners and were forced to close down.They were replaced with labour migration – people started leaving. The entire development of the Russian economy and arising demands for a labour force got new forms of development. Nonetheless, the most important thing is that the ties remained. This is one side. Another side is the conflict that appeared on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, it was stopped solely by Russia, frozen. Russia was one of the main participants of the negotiation process that the U.S. and France joined within the framework of the Minsk Group.- Considering the complicated situation in economy and the living standards of the majority of the Armenian population, is there a guarantee for closer relations between Armenia and Russia than between the West and Turkey, can Armenia drift West of Turkey, if given better cooperation terms?- I agree with the presentation of the problem. Of course, the traditional policy of Armenia was complementary, it implied support of friendly, beneficial ties with Russia and all countries of the world that Armenia has diplomatic relations with. One of the goals of the ties was the creation of guarantees for security enforcement, also in the context of frozen military actions in Karabakh.The complementary policy oriented Armenia toward declarative statements about joining the European Union. For a very long time, Armenia was preparing documents, it has done great work to sign the association agreement with support of Western experts, experts of the European Union.But at the last moment, at the meeting on September 3 [2013], President Sargsyan declared the readiness of Armenia to sign the agreement to join the Customs Union. It was the result of a very hard struggle between two parties, elite groups, one of them oriented toward the EU, representing Westernism, the other was committed to forming closer ties with Russia. As a result, Armenia was ready to sign the agreement on the Customs Union and actively work within the framework of development of the Eurasian Economic Union.It was indeed a very hard struggle for influence on public opinion, because westerners, representatives of western states, were very harsh: there or here. Collaboration here and there was ruled out. Armenia chose Russia.- How do you think relations between Russia and Armenia will change after settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Could settlement, in other words a lifting of the economic blockade, the return of refugees, the lifting of the threat of war, become a guarantee of prosperity of the region, and a guarantee of strengthening of the position and role in the Caucasus for Russia?- It is hard to imagine a model of settlement of the Karabakh conflict, because the positions of the sides are opposing, they have not become any closer to each other in all these years, but a compromise is visible. The OSCE Minsk Group operates, offers options, but the positions remain the same. Emphasis is placed on forming some balance in the military potential between the two countries, in their standoff. This holds back the start of military actions, in my opinion, because both sides understand that a war would be destructive. The military potentials are about the same, despite the growing purchases of weapons by Baku. Maybe the Armenians are losing in the quantitative aspect, but in qualitative terms, the balance keeps them at peace, not war. A settlement process may happen on a geopolitical scale, though some other, internal political, internal economic conditions may arise. Will they benefit one country or another? There are many variants.- Would Armenia benefit from a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?- Of course. It is a national priority for Armenia, just as for Azerbaijan, because not a single government in Armenia or Azerbaijan can start attending any negotiations or make any serious concessions at the negotiations.A settlement may happen as a result of economic development, formation of an economic zone, a common market, when economic ties are be so intertwined that people will prioritize the interests and propagandize, agitate, form a public opinion that would gradually transform from hostility to mutual trust.- How important is settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for Russia, in the context of aggravating economic and political ties with the West? Could a South Caucasus free from the conflict become a reliable ally of Russia?- It has always been important for Russia, not only in the context of aggravating relations with the West today. The fewer hot spots there are on the Russian perimeter, the better for Russia. What are the U.S. and the EU trying to get? They want hot spots to cause additional problems for the development of Russia, its economic growth, its prosperity, the rise of welfare, the development of the country, its transformation into a powerful world state. They are all distractive moments that need great resources, attention, need concessions made to certain countries that have influence in the region. It is a global issue, where the Karabakh conflict has its value, plays the role of some factor or destabilization of the situation, additional difficulties for Russia. So, of course, Russia is very interested in finding a solution, creates significant conditions to avoid it, but we cannot see it yet.- In your evaluation, what is the impact of the Armenian diaspora, especially the one living in the West, on relations between Russia and Armenia?- There is influence. But Armenia is primarily interested in gaining finances, financial aid, because every year the president and the catholicos visit other countries inhabited by large, rich Armenian communities – in France, the U.S., Latin American states. They collect money there.In addition, the government pays special attention to the influence of Armenian communities (especially in the U.S. and France, where they are quite rich) in the formation of a pro-Armenian world public opinion on the Karabakh problem and condemnation of the genocide. These two priority issues are the basis of Armenian foreign policy and the formation of Armenian opinions.On the other hand, recent financial support – I mean charity – from the West is dropping. It is hard for me to tell why. It is either due to disappointment with the foreign or the internal policy of Armenia, or the influence of foreign forces on the Armenian community in France or the U.S. It is either one or the oth
