ArmInfo. Considering Charles Michel's "big breakthroughs" on the grounds of the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement, many uncomfortable questions arise. Sergei Markedonov, a leading Researcher at the MGIMO Institute for International Studies, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Analytics, wrote on his Facebook page.
, the analyst writes.
Markedonov notes.
Markedonov writes: "Again, Brussels has become the main place where the prospects for resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are discussed. On May 22, another round of talks was held in the capital of "united Europe" between European Council President Charles Michel, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. How to evaluate the results of this meeting? Can we say that the EU has come to the fore in the process of moderation by conflict resolution? First, it is worth noting the high negotiating pace. The first meeting of the leaders of the two Transcaucasian states and the head of the European Council took place on December 14 last year, and the second meeting on April 6. At the same time, it is worth noting that all three negotiating rounds ended not only with general politically correct formulations, but also with reaching specific agreements. Charles Michel called the May talks "frank" and "fruitful". But the substantive moments are much more important. In a statement to the press media, the head of the European Council said: "In the coming days, the first joint meeting of border commissions will be held at the interstate border, all issues related to the delimitation of the border and how best to ensure a stable situation will be considered." In addition to the issues of demarcation, such important packages as the socio-economic development of the region, the restoration of a full-fledged communication infrastructure and the preparation of a peace agreement were considered. The problem, as we see, is considered systematically.
Secondly, it must be noted that the EU is trying to assume the role of the main moderator of the peace process. In 2020-2021 Moscow was ahead of all other players on the negotiation track. And the frequency of trilateral meetings as well as the promotion of meaningful ideas were under its auspices. All this favorably distinguished the Russian side. Now, the EU is much more often mentioned as the organizer and inspirer of the cause of peace. One gets the impression that against the backdrop of the Ukrainian situation, Moscow has lost interest in the Caucasus region. Of course, this view is superficial. In fact, the southern part of the post-Soviet space is still important for the interests of the Russian Federation. But if so, meaningful initiatives are needed. In the end, it was Moscow that did a lot to minimize incidents both along the state border and directly in Nagorno-Karabakh. It was it who created a powerful foundation for both demarcation negotiations and a peace agreement. But Michelle's May statement did not mention Russia. There is no positive assessment or gratitude addressed to it. And in the current context, it most likely cannot be. The same head of the European Council became one of the frontmen of the tough policy of Brussels and the collective West in general in relation to Russia. The Russian Federation, the EU and the USA, which until recently successfully interacted in the Karabakh direction, have now become competitors in this part of Eurasia as well. Why, then, is there a feeling that Moscow is letting Brussels go ahead? The expectation that things will still not come to the final "big agreement", since the contradictions between Yerevan and Baku are still great, and to them are added discrepancies in approaches to a peaceful settlement within the conflicting societies, especially in Armenia? Perhaps this logic has its reasons. However, as you know, "a holy place is never empty." And it would be better to take care of filling it ahead of time.