DEAD END

In terms of advancing the peace settlement of the Karabakh conflict, 2014 ended without results. It was impossible to get the stalled negotiations out of the dead end they reached a few years ago. At the same time, we cannot say that the mediating OSCE Minsk Group did not make an effort to revive the peace process.

In 2014, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met three times - in Sochi, Wales and Paris. Initiators and moderators at these meetings were Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Secretary of State John Kerry and French President Francois Hollande respectively. However, these meetings were mostly held following the sharply aggravated situation on the temporary ceasefire line and were aimed at preventing a full-scale resumption of hostilities.

Fears of this kind were quite real. The past year was marked by growing tensions on the line of temporary ceasefire, characterized by frequent skirmishes and local armed clashes, the increasing number of dead and wounded and more large-scale military exercises involving heavy hardware and aircraft. The culmination of all this was an episode when an Armenian military helicopter, which decided to test our front line of defence, was shot down during provocative exercises that the Armenian armed forces carried out in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan blatantly and contrary to international law. The helicopter crashed between the front lines of the parties in the territory of Agdam District, and three members of its crew were killed. The cries about the "aggressiveness" of Azerbaijan raised by Armenian propaganda and official circles and the absurd "explanation" that the military helicopter was reportedly unarmed and was making a "training flight" did not cause a sympathetic response in the world. However, unfortunately, the international community shied away from pointing out to Armenia that military exercises organized in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan are illegal and provocative.

As for diplomatic interaction, it can hardly be called constructive. Occasional contacts between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia did not differ with their productivity. The parties are still unable to even outline the range of issues to be discussed and agree on a specific agenda of the talks. The co-chairs of the Minsk Group, who paid several visits to the region in the past year, limited themselves to local initiatives such as the strengthening of the ceasefire, withdrawal of snipers from the front line or dialogue between the civil societies of the conflicting parties.

The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry repeatedly offered to move from the endless debate over the wording of the basic principles of conflict resolution to "substantive" negotiations and work directly on the text of the peace agreement. After all, the comprehensive peace agreement will have the necessary specifics - a sequence of actions, timelines, monitoring mechanisms and so on, i.e. a real "road map" for the settlement of the conflict.

If the Minsk Group co-chairs previously demonstrated a certain detachment from the proposals of Baku, a greater understanding of them was noted in 2014. For example, during the Paris meeting of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia, French President Hollande urged the conflicting parties to begin work on a comprehensive peace agreement. Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, US Secretary of State John Kerry and French Minister of State for European Affairs Harlem Desir also stated during the OSCE Ministerial Council in Basel: "It is time to overcome the differences, restore confidence and fulfill obligations to join the negotiation process that can lead to a settlement. It is expected that they will recognize that the basis for a comprehensive settlement is the elements and principles set out in the joint declarations of the presidents of Russia, US and France, especially those that were discussed during the last summit in Paris. The negotiations on a comprehensive peace agreement under the auspices of the co-chairs should begin as soon as possible."

In response, President Serzh Sargsyan prefers to remain silent, but his Foreign Minister Nalbandyan persistently says that as long as there is no agreement on fundamental points, work on a comprehensive peace agreement is premature. The question arises: why does the Armenian side keeps dodging the proposals of Azerbaijan and the presidents and foreign ministers of the powers mediating the conflict resolution?

The answer lies on the surface and is that in order to start work on the appropriate document, the co-chairs have to put its draft on the table. No matter how Russia, the US and France sympathize with the Armenians, they cannot depart from the norms of international law in the draft and include items that legalize even partially the territorial seizures carried out by Armenia. After all, the co-chairs had to "upgrade" even the well-known Madrid principles contrary to the hysterical wishes of the Armenians. The maximum that the powers patronizing Armenians can do is to deter Azerbaijan from using force to liberate its own occupied territories and urge it to continue its dialogue with Armenia. The expectation is that Baku will eventually get tired, falter or an event will happen that will weaken the government of Azerbaijan, and then it will become pliable and agree somewhat "voluntarily" to make territorial concessions for the sake of a lasting peace. Under this option, the erosion of international law, even if formally, will be avoided. After all, everything the conflicting parties agree upon is legal.

Vain expectations. President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly stated that under no circumstances will he agree to the creation of "a second Armenian state" on the territory forcibly torn away from Azerbaijan. And the increase in the military budget of the country, which is twice the entire state budget of Armenia and 8-9 times greater than its defence spending, says that without losing the final faith in the possibility and expediency of a peaceful settlement, Baku does not exclude and is preparing to retake its occupied territories by force.

Armenia is trying to catch up with us, and it is increasingly difficult to maintain military parity, as its economy is moribund. Following the Russian rouble, the rate of the Armenian dram collapsed dramatically. The population, except for a small group of individuals close to the authorities, lured oligarchs and their hangers-on and servants, is becoming impoverished. According to official data, the poor make up half the population in the country that is rapidly losing its population. According to Armenian politicians and experts themselves, an "exodus", i.e. the depopulation of the country is under way, particularly in border regions.

We can understand the migrants, because they are driven away from Armenia not only by poverty, but also by the absence of any hope for improvement in the foreseeable future. After all, the economy of this country, which never recovered from the downturn of 2008, is now sinking into stagnation. The trickle of foreign investment, which was scanty previously too, threatens to dry up. The rich and influential Armenian diaspora abroad has long given up on the corrupt and mafia government team of Serzh Sargsyan and reduces its financial handouts from year to year. At the same time, as a result of the financial crisis in Russia and Ukraine, remittances from Armenian immigrants working in these countries have decreased significantly.

Armenia has not gained any significant political or economic dividends from its mandatory-voluntary entry into the EAEU. At the insistence of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who voiced an address from Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Yerevan had to publicly recognize that Nagornyy Karabakh has nothing to do with the agreements joined by Armenia. Thus, the clever plan of the Armenians to quietly drag the unrecognized separatist formation of Karabakh into the EAEU suffered a humiliating fiasco. As it turns out, amid the fall in world energy prices, the Russian discounts on gas and oil products are not so significant. There is also no point in counting on investments and soft loans from Russia in a situation where Russia is plunging into a severe financial crisis. But Yerevan cannot resist the will of its Russian patron and reconsider the decision to join the EAEU, as contrary to overconfident public statements, it is aware that the vaunted Armenian army is no longer able to resist the armed forces of Azerbaijan alone.

In addition, the Armenians are recently troubled by disturbing doubts with regard to the continued support of Moscow. The rapprochement between Russia and Turkey, which was clearly evident during the recent state visit of President Vladimir Putin to Ankara, causes associations in them with the well-known agreements between Lenin and Ataturk in the early twentieth century. The Kars and Moscow treaties, which outlined the current borders of Armenia, still cause resentment and impotent rage in Armenians.

After the annexation of the Crimea by Russia and the events in the Donbass, Western capitals are no longer so inclined to turn a blind eye to separatism and violent change of borders in Europe. In this sense, the Crimean precedent did not strengthen, but weakened the support of Armenians in the West, especially that Baku legitimately raises the issue of double standards with the US and the EU, when strict sanctions are imposed on Russia and the separatists, including a ban on all financial and economic activities in the Crimea, communication and visits to the area, while Armenia and Karabakh separatists are given financial support, visited, received and admonished in a friendly manner. Azerbaijan demands that the US and the European Union take a principled stand against all such conflicts in Europe and prevent the further erosion of international law on the issue of non-violent seizure and retention of the territory of a neighbouring state.

In this situation, the Armenian government has gone on the "defensive" and only occasionally makes inappropriate statements like the recent pearls of President Serzh Sargsyan and his dull-witted Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandyan that the known four UN Security Council resolutions on Karabakh have been supposedly implemented by Armenia, but disrupted by Azerbaijan. Such information-diplomatic "discoveries" can cause nothing but smiles because of their complete inadequacy. It remains for them to stubbornly bide their time hoping for a "miracle" that will change the unfavourable situation for the Armenians. They hope that in an atmosphere of artificially induced international sympathy in connection with the 100th anniversary of the far-fetched "genocide" and the first European Olympic Games to be held in summer in Baku, military complications can be avoided. And in autumn, ahead of parliamentary elections, according to the calculations of the Armenian "strategists", Baku should not start military operations to liberate the occupied territories. But if in respect of the first half of 2015 Armenian calculations are likely to be justified, Armenians should not rely on the elections in Azerbaijan if no serious negotiations begin to reach a comprehensive peace agreement. The liberation of the occupied territories is above everything else for political parties and public leaders of Azerbaijan regardless of whether they support the authorities or the opposition. So the question of peace or war in 2015 remains open.

The fact that the aforesaid is not the usual rhetoric, but reflects the reality of the situation is proved by the report that the American Council on Foreign Relations, in its Global Conflict Tracker forecast, noted a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia among the 34 geopolitical risks of 2015. This authoritative organization surveyed more than 2,200 government officials, foreign policy experts and scientists to assess the risks faced by the United States based on the probability of an event in 2015 and its possible impact on US interests. Such forecasts show increased risks of war, but are not the verdict. If the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan demonstrate will and realism and the powers that mediate within the framework of the Minsk Group show perseverance and integrity, a breakthrough in the negotiations is achievable and should be sought.