BY HOOK OR BY CROOK

Lances continue to break over Nagornyy Kara-bakh (NK) and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The harsh statement by the Azerbaijani president ahead of the Munich meeting, as well as the statements on its results and on the negotiations in Athens, made by the OSCE Minsk and the parties to the conflict, left almost no-one indifferent. Many experts and representatives of various international organizations are showing increased optimism about the imminent signing of at least a framework agreement.

However, as expected, these events caused the biggest outcry in Azerbaijan and Armenia. If Baku expresses restrained optimistic opinions about the possibility of an agreement on the phased settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict within the norms of international law, Yerevan is dominated by calls for the strengthening of the destructive position in the negotiations.

Over the entire period of the conflict, the opinions of the Azerbaijani authorities and public about the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict have always constituted a single whole, sounding in unison. But in Armenia, on the contrary, there have always been different speculative and sometimes directly opposite forecasts. Now that the outlines of the solution to the conflict have become clear, the Armenian diaspora and opposition are playing the card of public opinion, trying to put pressure on Yerevan and force it to retreat from the crux of the issue.

It should be noted that the basis of such flawed tactics was laid by the Armenian authorities. Each political group in this country, usurping power on a wave of national-chauvinist slogans, eventually turns into a hostage of unbridled nationalists and ideologues of the Armenian cause, which significantly narrows its chances of manoeuvring.

The current situation in Armenia is no exception, which is proved by the reaction of the authorities and representatives of the country's political elite to the negotiations on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. Thus, Yerevan first announced progress in Munich and Athens, and then, under severe pressure, began to disavow the agreements already reached on certain points.

The reaction of the Armenian political elite to the recent events gives a clear picture of the mood prevailing in Armenian society, its aims and objectives, the essence of the conflict itself and the degree of Yerevan's interest in its solution.

The Armenian side was particularly alarmed by the harsh statement Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev made ahead of the meeting in Munich. Now the Armenian defence minister flaunts the fact that Yerevan is not afraid of such statements. Some marginal groups threaten to wipe Azerbaijan off the earth if hostilities resume. There are also groups that play the card of CSTO forces.

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan showed touching concern for the international image of Azerbaijan. According to him, Azerbaijan's bellicose statements do not frighten Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh, but deal a major blow to the image of Azerbaijan in the international arena. And in an interview with Radio Liberty, Nalbandyan said that the problem allegedly concerns relations between Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh and "good" Armenia is trying to help resolve this process.

Such an interpretation is a direct challenge to the international community and the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. Questions arise: If Nalbandyan is telling the truth, then why is Armenia recognized as a party to the conflict? And who are the four UN resolutions on withdrawal from the occupied Azerbaijani territories without any preconditions directed at?

Referring to the Madrid principles, Nalbandyan said that the subject of discussion is only 1/3 of this document. But for some reason, he does not reveal the essence of this part. Today, Yerevan and the Armenians are trying not to mention this document, although they willingly flaunted it before.

The explanation is quite simple. According to the OSCE Minsk Group, some additions are made after each meeting, which help bring the sides' positions closer and promote the signing of a framework agreement. It is no longer secret that the document provides for a phased settlement of the conflict.

For the current Armenian authorities, such a disposition is doubly nasty. First, they come up against a barrier on the path of alienating Nagornyy Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Second, the clan, which seized power in the country by disrupting the phased plan for the settlement of the conflict, can easily fall into its own trap.

There is also a clear contradiction in comments by functionaries of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia. For example, although the secretary of the ruling party, E. Sharmazanov, called the Munich talks on Karabakh progress, the head of their own parliamentary faction, G. Sahakyan, said that the subject of the negotiations to date is the status of Nagornyy Karabakh and the Armenian side is not going to make any concessions on the Karabakh issue.

These post-factum statements by Armenian officials are the direct result of domestic pressure. There is no point in enumerating the long list of accusations against the Armenian authorities from the opposition and the public. Suffice it to note that according to many in the Armenian political elite, Yerevan has agreed to withdraw from the territories under pressure from international forces and the growing economic and military power of Azerbaijan. Therefore, they demand that the Armenian authorities involve Nagornyy Karabakh, which is allegedly "the true owner of the liberated territories", in the negotiating process by any means.

In November, the streets of Yerevan were full of posters with the slogans "Made in Armenia" and "We Made This", which are part of the campaign "Buy Armenian Products" by Millennium Challenge Account - Armenia. These posters featured the map of the "NKR" incompletely - the "liberated" territories were not there. Then the Armenian media and society began to demand that the Yerevan authorities "return" the seven districts to the map. As a result, the City Council apologized, rebuked the main specialist of the external design and advertising department, and the boards were dismantled.

If, on the one hand, this behaviour by Yerevan prevents the settlement process, on the other, it fully discloses the purpose of the Armenians and points to the true essence of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict - it cannot be interpreted as an ethnic conflict, because this is a real inter-state war aimed at seizing other countries' territories. Therefore, there can be no talk of involving Nagornyy Karabakh in the negotiating process.

Armenia itself is unwittingly laying its cards on the table, appearing as an aggressor. If previously Yerevan speculated about the idea of "territories in exchange for recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh's independence", now it is making it clear that it is not going to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territories under any scenario. Otherwise, how can we explain that the "security zone around Nagornyy Karabakh" (terminology of the Armenians themselves) suddenly turned into "liberated territories"?

Such statements also cast aspersions on the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group and the Madrid document, which, the co-chairs are deeply convinced, will be fundamental in the process of conflict resolution. If Armenia, each time thinking up new excuses and obstacles, is not going not only to comply with the mandatory documents, but also to sign them, then who are these documents being prepared for?

As soon as the possibility of a real breakthrough in the settlement loomed on the horizon, the Armenian side immediately began to torpedo the Madrid document and co-chairs, accusing them of excessive pressure on Yerevan. The Armenian political establishment believes that the OSCE Minsk Group is trying to wrest maximum concessions from Yerevan in the negotiating process.

Amid all this, it would be naive to believe that such radical calls are mostly heard from the camp of the Armenian opposition, and to hope that Yerevan intends to secure a breakthrough in resolving the conflict. The above facts and conflicting statements by officials indicate that the official authorities of Armenia will hardly dare to disobey their national chauvinists and ideologues, because otherwise, everything may end in a coup.

Although many may be sceptical about this view, this cannot be ruled out. We cannot say that these forces have no major influence in Armenia. Did anyone take such outsiders as Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan seriously before? But ultimately, they usurped power in Armenia and still maintain their bloody regime.

Another issue is that government change in Armenia does not bode well for it. The coup of 1998 and the parliament shootout of 1999 do not put this country in the best light. It has long been understood that such events take place there at the time of certain improvements in the settlement process. But the international community is unlikely to forgive Yerevan for another farce, and conversely, will increase pressure on it. It is possible that the interest of the European Court in Serzh Sargsyan's role in the Xocali tragedy is also one of the elements of such pressure.

Meanwhile, it is possible that the latest hysteria of the Armenians has a purpose. This can be done in order to exert psychological pressure on the international community and Azerbaijan - deliberately making claims to the surrounding areas, to wrest consent to the recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh. Allegedly, in this case, Baku, fearing excessive territorial claims by Armenia, will choose the lesser of two evils. And the co-chairs will persuade Baku to accept this.

Second, it strongly smacks of sophistry. In the course of affairs, Armenia is trying to change the very essence of the negotiations and make not the Nagornyy Karabakh issue, but the remaining occupied Azerbaijani territory a subject of negotiations. All together rush to find out who owns these territories. And with such a sauce, the Karabakh problem is "safely" put in cold storage. As they say, by hook or by crook.

Therefore, only consolidated pressure from all sides and international institutions on Armenia and its recognition as an aggressor can disrupt these insidious plans by Yerevan. Judging by the fact that Azerbaijan withdrew the draft resolution on the situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan from the UN, one can assume that the co-chairs promised Baku to step up pressure on Yerevan.

And, most likely, in return, Baku agreed to help the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs save face, because another such vote, like in March last year at the UN, would have completely discredited the mediators.

Especially as, based on the results of the Munich and Athens meetings, they noted the priority of the three principles in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict: non-use of force, territorial integrity and the right of self-determination. So, at the UN they would not have been able to vote against their own words again.

We suppose that the most positive outcome of the Munich and Athens meetings was that Armenia's policy was exposed again. And the primary role in this was played by the reaction of the Armenian side, including of the Armenian authorities, to these same events.