IN BAKU-MOSCOW-ANKARA FORMAT

For many, the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Baku was highly unexpected. At least, it did not appear in the official list of scheduled meetings. However, the trip of Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov to Ankara for consultations with his counterpart the day before and Sergey Lavrov's telephone conversation with Mevlut Cavusoglu not only tells about the careful preparation of the meeting in Baku, but also of the participants in the negotiations. Andrey Yepifantsev, a well-known Russian journalist, a specialist in internal politics, the Caucasus, and the head of the Alte et Certe analytical centre, shares with R+ his assumptions as to what was behind these actions and what topics could have been on the agenda of the meeting.

- Elmar Mammadyarov and Sergey Lavrov met in May and July, and now this sudden and mysterious visit to Baku. What do you think was the reason for it?

- In fact, no one can tell exactly what the purpose of Lavrov's visit to Baku was. However, the absence of information leaks indicates the serious nature of the talks. The process discussed in the negotiations is lengthy and complex. It is ongoing, so there is no sense for the parties involved in this process to talk about it. But there are a few topics that are likely to have been touched on. First, a set of issues related to the Nagornyy Karabakh settlement. You may recall that a few months prior to the visit, information was circulated, including from people close to the Kremlin circles, such as Sergey Markov (director of the Institute of Political Studies, a State Duma member. - Ed.), that we would soon witness a major breakthrough in solving the Nagornyy Karabakh problem. Most experts, including myself, are rather sceptical about it. I do not see the basis for making such statements. Nevertheless, such forecasts were made, and the present visit speaks of a recent surge in diplomacy within the circuit Baku-Moscow-Ankara. Yerevan is not involved in this endeavour. Apparently, there is a discussion of some serious proposals. It is difficult to tell by which side these proposals were put forward, but it is obvious that they either have been agreed on with Yerevan or will be presented to it when the parties to negotiations arrive at a certain decision.

Diplomatic work is carried out against the backdrop of a serious aggravation of the situation. It came in two waves - before the European Games and after them. In my opinion, there is a probability of the resumption of war. I do not agree with some Russian experts who do not believe this. Such a probability does exist, but not for this year. And if a war is to be started, it will only be started by Azerbaijan. Armenia has assumed the stance of a peace lover, for whom the most important thing is the absence of war. We must understand, however, that this is not because Armenia stands for peace by definition. I tell this to Armenians, too.

This is a pragmatic approach. It does not stem from any deep commitment to peace, rather from the fact that Armenia controls the Karabakh territory and, of course, seeks to avoid a situation where another country would challenge its gains by military means. If we imagine hypothetically that Armenia has lost the territory of Nagornyy Karabakh, it will instantly take an attitude that is currently assumed by Azerbaijan - let us solve it peacefully, otherwise we can solve it by war.

- You say there may be an escalation of tension, either this or next year. What is the attitude of Russia to all this? On the one hand, it is tied with Yerevan by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and on the other, the military cooperation with Azerbaijan is expanding. This was once again emphasized during Lavrov's visit to Baku. Is there not a contradiction in these actions?

- This is a very sensitive issue, which can be viewed from different angles. To a certain extent, it is a question of morality. Indeed, it looks like Russia acts in accordance with the principle formulated by one of the Israeli politicians: "We wish both sides good luck" (thus was assessed the situation in Syria by Professor Eyal Zisser, a leading Israeli expert on the country, in January 2014. - Ed.). In fact, this is not so. Russia holds a very complicated and risky position in this conflict. True, Armenia is our strategic ally, but Azerbaijan is not our enemy, either.

We want to be friends with both of the warring sides, and it is extremely difficult. The logic of Russia goes like this: yes, we will give guarantees to and protect Armenia, except for, let us say, the disputed territory - guarantees shall not apply to this territory, but we will supply weapons to Azerbaijan, too. Because Azerbaijan is nothing like Nigeria or Somalia or Sudan or North Korea, for that matter. If this country wishes to buy the most modern weapons, it may well do so in the global market.

Another reason for the importance of Russia's military-technical cooperation with Azerbaijan is that otherwise it will buy weapons meeting NATO standards, which means even greater Baku's drift from Moscow. We do not want that.

- Fair enough. Many took notice of the fact that, in the statement for the press after the talks, the focus was on the strengthening of cooperation in the military and economic spheres. What do you think, who was this message addressed to? After all, the issues of the geopolitical situation in the region were certainly discussed during the talks in Baku.

- Do not base on statements by politicians delivered immediately after the meeting, as they may contain diplomatic rhetoric and standard phrases that must be said according to the protocol. No one can say what the basis of the meeting was.

If we are talking about foreign policy aspects, both countries have found themselves in not very good situations and are interested in strengthening cooperation with each other. Falling oil prices, reduced shares of Russia and Azerbaijan as suppliers of hydrocarbons to Europe and Iran's access to world markets in the nearest future can lead to very serious political implications. And the reduction in shares is always followed by various claims. Russia witnesses the intensification of claims to its foreign policy activities, while Azerbaijan - to its internal policies including the attitude to the opposition, civil liberties, human rights...

The West is trying to isolate Russia, including through increased pressure on Azerbaijan, and our countries would better work together. All post-Soviet countries have already made up their minds in respect of political blocs, whereas Azerbaijan has not decided yet. Or if it has, then its affiliation lies outside any bloc option. For Azerbaijan, Turkey is a neighbouring country, but it is neither NATO nor the EU. For Russia, it is important to tip the scales towards the Eurasian Union. This issue might have been discussed as well, I cannot rule it out.

In terms of economics, we also have common concerns. When the price of oil was 100 dollars, we were rivals, now we need to develop a common strategy and become allies. I think this would be the most natural topic for discussion.

The list of topics, which would require such a veil of secrecy as the one that had enveloped the visit, is rather limited.