Sensing the strengthened shoulder of their foreign patrons, Yerevan continues to swim further into the darkness.

The views of the Russian Foreign Ministry, according to which the West is blocking the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, are hopelessly outdated. Is it logical to complain endlessly that in conditions when America is far away, and Russia is nearby, the Kremlin is unable to curb the hotbed of tension at its own borders? It is possible, if you do not take into account the obvious fact that the lobbying pro-Armenian grouping has not only settled but also strengthened within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the northern neighbor.

However, it is increasingly difficult for Russia to hide attachments, frank curtsey in favor of the aggressor, who demonstratively spits on Moscow’s authority as the global center of power.

Minister Sergei Lavrov and his punishing hand in the face of spokesperson Maria Zakharova are definitely unable to retouch their own sins with excuses like "If it were not for the West, we would have long settled the conflict in Karabakh."

This is true: Russia indeed is able to defend its sovereignty, its security in the face of NATO's attempts to establish itself in the world, as Lavrov indicated speaking before the MGIMO staff. But he did not find it important to admit that, in order to strengthen its positions, Moscow is increasing the capacity of counteracting the destructive resources of regional problems, when, for example, Azerbaijan pays for this. That is, the flow of Russian countermeasures is enriched by diversifying its neighbors’ costs.

Is there any reason for Lavrov to act as a complainer, who is not satisfied with NATO's attempts to change the military and political situation by building up a physical presence in the regions bordering Russia Unquestionably, there is. Therefore, in order to neutralize the competitor's efforts, first of all, it is necessary to neutralize dangerous trends by suppressing hotbeds of tension.

A part of the military and political elite overseas does not only think but also implements the plan for encircling Russia with a ring of all kinds of hot spots. If they are no such hotbeds, for example, in some prosperous neighboring region with Russia, they will certainly come up with it. There are plenty of ethno-territorial occasions and historical motives. If any, the West uses them to establish themselves in the perimeter of existing crises for loosening Russian redoubts.

In the Karabakh dilemma, Moscow acts in a manner that is presumptuous, relying on an unshakable head start. However, the actions to unblock the crisis in the "teaspoonful" tradition do not only come contrary to the expectations of the suffering sides of the conflict, but also are irrelevant to the logic of constructivism, which Mr. Lavrov always insists on.

Having stymied in the wilds of the strategy of counteracting Euro-Atlanticism, the Smolenskaya Square loses its initiative in the concept of Eurasianism proclaimed by Moscow itself. The Karabakh problem, despite its relatively local geopolitical caliber, contains a large explosive fuse. The orbit of states that show interest in it includes both world leaders and regional powers. The problem has been internationalized. Going from moderate soil to the elements of military solution would not only turn the South Caucasus into a boiling cauldron, but also blow it up.

The trio of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs previously collectively cuddled the troublemaker, thus stimulating the territorial ambitions of the aggressor. Later, the West somewhat distanced itself agreeing with the Russian moderation. And what was the result of Moscow’s solo performance? Alas, the result was no good. Sensing the strengthened shoulder of the foreign patrons, Yerevan swims further into the darkness with the blessing of its intercessors.

At a meeting in the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Lavrov spoke from a high rostrum, saying that "no one should strengthen his security by infringing on the security of others." Who would argue ?! However, it would be better to clarify whether this principle is selective. Perhaps, the interpretation of the thesis contained the unpublished notes.

When he speaks about the legal bindingness of international declarations, the principle of indivisible security as a factor preventing the unblocking of conflicts, it won’t seem superfluous to say, "Mr. Lavrov, start with yourself, set the trend of persuasiveness to the proclaimed imperatives from the crisis in Karabakh to which you are so are close not only physically … ".

The nature of the underwater northern currents with the roots going to the Smolenskaya square has long been deciphered in Baku. The skirmishers' mood has been unperturbed until recently, as if everything will further follow on the given routes. However, in addition to Baku's arguments, Richard Hoagland, the American diplomat, who has been unlawfully ostracized in recent days more by Moscow than Yerevan, has set them a task. Restless Maria Zakharova continues to insist that the co-chair’s proposals are not new. She is echoed by the Armenian leadership. One does not need to be mathematically smart to find the difference in the approaches of Hoagland and Lavrov.

Against the backdrop of the Russian’s plan to release five regions and simultaneously determine the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the American proposes to transfer to Azerbaijan its legitimate seven regions (without the Lachin corridor) with further discussion of the status of the region.

The differences are obvious, and it is not clear why Lavrov and his talking shadow do not notice the fundamental difference between the two approaches. It is worth recalling the original idea of the same Lavrov on the release of only two districts at the initial stage. Baku rejected the bad initiative from the threshold, since it was again subordinated to the wishes of the aggressor, who does not hurry with the withdrawal of troops from Azerbaijani lands. Baku let the Russian Foreign Minister know that the traditions of the Yerevan bazaar are unacceptable.

The positions of Russia and the United States on Karabakh do not coincide, because the pro-Armenian line has been activated by Lavrov and his surrounding, and it is artificially presented as the position opposing the strengthening of Western influence in the key region of the post-Soviet space. It is noteworthy that this takes place against the backdrop of a mass transfer of the leading forces of the Armenian elite to the rank of pro-Westerners.

If Lavrov maintains the pirouettes of the so-called US counteraction on the platform of harming Baku's interests, he only undermines the foundations of the Azerbaijani-Russian relations. There can be no doubt that the ecstatic ‘Lavrov-Zakharova’ move will not work. The incitement of anti-Azerbaijani phobias and the artificial inflammation of tension will turn into sins for the designers of the axial deal. It's time to get rid of the sick temptation after a series of failures.

Tofig Abbasov is a political expert.