Andrei Ryabov: «Armed conflict may lead to irreparable consequences for Russia's South Caucasus policies”

Andrei Ryabov, expert from Moscow Karnega Research Center, told VK about the main threats that might undermine Russian influence on the South Caucasus, as well as about Moscow’s choice of opportunities to maintain peace in the region and about the role of the US in creation of the ‘regulated chaos’ atmosphere. He also touched upon the issue of OSCE Minsk Group efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

- OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs keep trying to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. What prognoses could you make on the prospects of these efforts?

- In general, Russian and foreign experts agree that the threat of a new violent breakout in the Nagorno-Karabakh is a distinct possibility. It seems, however, that a solid and rational position of the mediator powers, especially Russia, may prove efficient in keeping the conflict is a ‘frozen’ stage for a rather long period of time despite the desire of both sides to tip the military balance. However, everyone, including the conflict parties, understands that a new armed conflict in this region (in the Wider West Asia as the Americans call it) would lead to grave consequences for all its countries, and not only for South Caucasian states. First of all, I mean the threat to Russian interests in Armenia and Azerbaijan. A new Nagorno-Karabakh war would have devastating effect on Russia’s authority on the South Caucasus, and Russia has considerable strategic interests in Armenia and energetic ties to Azerbaijan. These problems are becoming more and more topical for Russia as we can’t seem to agree with our Western partners on oil and gas transportation trough South Caucasian territory. For example, Turkey refused to participate in our ‘Southern Stream’ project.

- How could you characterize the trilateral meetings of Russian president Dmitry Medvedev with his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts?

- The very fact that there were 6 of them during Medvedev’s presidency indicates that the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is one of the most important priorities for Russia. The general expert opinion on the matter is that now there are no favorable preconditions for resolving the conflict and they are unlikely to appear any time soon, so the only thing that mediators can do is to guard the status-quo and prevent a new war from breaking out. After the August War with Georgia there were a lot of concerns that Russia intends make a ‘general revision’ of the region’s state borders/ However, Russia obviously had no plans like that or even means to carry them out. Russia decided to observe status-quo. Today, Russian-Georgian relations seem to be more stable and don’t offer any reasons to fear any new developments. So now Russia is much more concerned with the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, as both sides race to increase their military potentials. And Moscow understands that an armed conflict might lead to irreparable consequences for all Russian politics on the South Caucasus. In case of war Russia will lose all its value as a strategic partner for both sides, that is why Medvedev was trying so hard to at leas maintain status-quo and why the future president is likely to carry on with this political course.

- Do other OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs agree with Russia’s position in the matter? What are their interests in the region?

- No one is interested in a new armed conflict; there are far too many geopolitical risks to it. US and France are also interested in maintaining status-quo. Of course, it can’t remain like that forever, but currently there’s no better alternative. And it seems that Europe and US have finally come to realize and recognize Russia’s exclusive position in the matter. The fact that all other co-chairs virtually recognized their inability to do anything about the conflict during the Astana OSCE proves the point.

- So you don’t believe that the USA is planning to use the issue of Iran to pressure Russia into giving up its lead position in the Karabakh process?

- No, I don’t. I’m not a partisan of the ‘regulated chaos’ theory. I also don’t believe that US is trying to talk Azerbaijan into offering its territory as a site of US missile launch against Iran in return for a permission to break the Karabakh staus-quo. The situation in the Middle East is far too complicated, and recently got even more complex after the events of the ‘Arab spring’. Syria is a crucial link in this region, and how the situation turns out there is yet unknown. In these conditions it is really hard to make the chaos ‘regulated’ and adapting such a policy would be a mistake for any state no matter the resources it possesses. Plus there’s the global economic crisis, so I don’t believe that current US administration would risk taking such a step.

As for the general pattern of the so-called ‘Arab revolutions’, in the case of Syria one can see a considerable influence of conservative Arab states, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They offer the US to replace Israel as their main ‘western partner’ and demonstrate that their moderate Islam open to certain modernization is much better than the alternative. As for Libya, one can see that the events played out just like the West planned. But this game is dangerous not only for Libyans, but for the West as well as there is no foretelling how the situation will end.

Interview by David Stepanyan.