ArmInfo. Israeli public figure and political analyst Avigdor Eskin often gives interviews to the Armenian media. Studying his recent statements, ArmInfo highlighted several questions which, in our opinion, need a more thorough interpretation, and turned to the analyst with a request for comments.
– Avigdor, recently in one of your interviews to the Armenian media you stated that "there is no certainty that Russia will continue to maintain its peacekeeping mission in Nagorno-Karabakh". What is your point of view based on? Do you think that Russia, having established a stronghold in Karabakh, near the border with Iran, for some reason can refuse such a strategic presence?
– The developments of the last month have not strengthened Russia's status on the territory of the former Soviet republics. For all thirty years after the collapse of the USSR, Moscow failed to establish itself there with the help of "soft power", and now it is completely criticized in all former Soviet territories. Belarus and, to a lesser extent, Armenia are exceptions. If the military campaign against Ukraine had culminated in a quick manifestation of force, then other scenarios would have been possible. But at this stage, Russia is losing influence. Moscow's interest in having a presence in Armenia and Karabakh remains, but its capabilities may be called into question if it enters a crisis or depression as a result of military difficulties in Ukraine and a worsening domestic climate due to economic reasons. A scenario should be considered that in a few months Russia will not ''get time for Karabakh". This is an attempt to point to a possible scenario, not to predict something. At the same time, I do not at all call for neglecting the role of Russia and its influence, but on the contrary. This is a vital and currently uncontested strategic asset of Armenia. Your government is behaving quite reasonably, refusing to participate in the anti-Russian campaign. This is not about supporting certain actions of Russia, but about caring for Armenian interests.
– It is clear that the security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh has been entrusted to the Russian peacekeepers. This is the logical result of the 44-day war, which was stopped exclusively due to Russia's position regardless of the various versions of both what happened and the reasons that prompted Azerbaijan to use force to resolve the issue. It is an indisputable fact, but nevertheless, the same Russia agreed to preserve and even "reincarnate" I would call it that, the OSCE Minsk Group, as an international institute capable and responsible to find a peaceful solution to the issue within the framework of the same international principles, including the right of nations to self-determination. This narrative, for obvious reasons, is not "liked" by the West today, but "liked" by Russia. But you think that "not a single international scenario is relevant for Armenia. Nobody in the world is going to defend Armenia's right to Karabakh." Why? And what do you think about it?
– Not a single country in the world actively intervened in the course of your war. If not Moscow, Azerbaijan had every opportunity to regain Karabakh completely. Let's imagine that tomorrow Russia abandons the peacekeeping mission. What will happen then? The answer to this question is clear. And the illusions about this are groundless. There is no real basis to rely on the USA, France or Iran. I would like to emphasize that we are talking exclusively about Karabakh, not an attempt to invade the territory of sovereign Armenia. As for international principles, there are several decisions of the UN Security Council on Karabakh, which give preference to the principle of "inviolability of borders" rather than "national self- determination". In the past, the special status of Karabakh was also axiomatic for the Azerbaijani side. If during the negotiations Armenia can achieve such results even now, then no one in the UN Security Council will object.
– So, on the one hand, you consider that Armenia needs to strengthen its Armed Forces and economy, on the other hand, that it is necessary to hurry with the peace treaty. Do you believe that the peace "on paper" will open "roads to different worlds" for Armenia? As the history of international relations after the fall of the Berlin Wall shows, international agreements are no longer worth anything, and will not be worth anything until a new balance of power is formed in the world, or at least in its "western part". Only in this case any peripheral peace agreements will have a chance of success. Who, if not Israeli analysts, should know about this through the prism of more than half a century of unsuccessful experience in resolving the Middle East crisis.
– The experience of Israel is in many ways an example of success, not failure. This is due to the fact that in 73 years Israel has increased its Jewish population twelvefold, strengthened itself as a leading scientific and military power, and our GDP today is about half a trillion dollars. Therefore, we managed to come to peace agreements with the leading Arab countries, despite the fact that we have not achieved complete stability, as evidenced by the recent terrorist attacks of the Palestinian monsters. As for Armenia, two years ago and twenty years ago it could have come to a much more favorable agreement with Azerbaijan than under even the best scenario today. Your experience fully indicates that time will only work for you if a peaceful solution is reached. For now, time worked for Azerbaijan. Armenia retains the enormous intellectual and creative potential of its inhabitants and Diaspora. Economic development and the realization of one's own talents will become more real in a peaceful environment. Therefore, you should seriously think about the prospects for a peace agreement, as well as about the prospects of life in its absence.
