SENSITIVE BORDERS

The situation on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border remains tense. After unsuccessful attempts to provoke Azerbaijani border guards along the Zangilan border, similar attempts were observed along the border line in Lachin. Moreover, Armenians tried to exacerbate the situation with the involvement of external actors, which was negatively received not only in Azerbaijan, but also in Russia – the guarantor of the implementation of the November 10 trilateral statement.

Difficult but inevitable process

Nobody expected that the implementation of the trilateral statement would be easy and painless. Despite Armenia’s obligations under the statement, it is the only party of the agreement that had to implement them not on its own free will, but under the pressure of circumstances. It is clear that the obligations to withdraw the remaining troops from the previously occupied territories, as well as the voluntary transfer of the sections of the Azerbaijani-Armenian state border under the control of Azerbaijan were not part of Yerevan's plans. But as a result of the crushing defeat in the 44-day war, the Armenian authorities were forced to admit that hundreds of kilometres of the border, as well as thousands of square kilometres of territories must be returned to their rightful owner. Main problems began after that, since, according to the configuration of the border, a considerable length of the border line with the densely populated Armenian territories were critically close to Azerbaijani positions.

This caused additional irritation in the Armenian society, fuelled by publications in the media and political statements of Armenian authorities. In a number of cases this includes the manipulation of facts and the interpretation of processes. Strangely, not only and not so much does Azerbaijan accuses the Armenian authorities, but also their own political opponents. As if the provocations on the border were arranged deliberately to be used later in the political struggle. In particular, representatives of the opposition believe that Nikol Pashinyan does not dare to take the necessary measures against Azerbaijan, which they accuse of violating the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and invading the territory of Armenia.

Politicians expressing the interests of the party led by the former President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, claim that if a professional team (meaning, themselves) was ruling the country and was ready to defend the interests of Armenia, then the processes around Syunik (Zangezur) could be used as "an additional opportunity to effectively work with different centres of power." At the same time, they are apparently afraid that the ruling elite in Armenia will not be able to resist the Azerbaijani-Turkish pressure on the issue of opening the Zangezur corridor. Some opposition politicians claim that the goal of Pashinyan's visit to Syunik in April and his talks with the regional administration was to convince the local authorities of the usefulness of the corridor, which is promoted under pressure from Azerbaijan and Turkey.

At the same time, they completely ignore the fact that the actions of Azerbaijan are based on the provisions of the trilateral statement and pursue the legal consolidation of borders on the basis of Soviet military topographic maps of 1975-1976.

It is important for Azerbaijan that this process goes consistently and has as its logical goal to restore full control along the entire length of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border, taking into account, of course, the return of the exclave territories around the villages of Kyarki and Yukhary Eskipara. Baku is trying to ignore the reaction of Armenia, especially the attempt to link the internal political crisis in the country with such a complex process.

Ishigly Garagol as a new starting point for demarcation

Meanwhile, the Armenian side is trying to prevent the consistent course of works on the border and to present the situation as an attempt by Azerbaijan to take full control of not only the entire border and key heights, but also to move deep into the territory of Armenia. There are serious talks about the alleged plans of Azerbaijan to seize Syunik. It would be nice if these talks would remain within Armenia. After all, Baku is neither interested in prohibiting such people from playing their games, nor in interfering in the internal affairs of its neighbours. However, Yerevan makes the situation complex and specific by once again trying to kindle a conflict and attracting external regional actors into it.

Obviously, the political situation after the 44-day war assumes active participation of a limited number of participants in the post-conflict reality. At least, the relations between Baku and Yerevan are currently governed by Moscow, as agreed on November 10, 2020. In addition, there is a Russian-Turkish monitoring centre in the region, the operation of which was also determined as a result of additional agreements. There is no need to attract additional participants to the region. Either way, neither Russia nor Azerbaijan show such an intention. The same is not true for Armenia though.

On May 5-6, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited Yerevan and held meetings with the Armenian leadership. On May 10-11, Lavrov visited Baku, where he continued the discussion of the peacebuilding process with the leadership of Azerbaijan. Both in Yerevan and in Baku, the Russian minister made it clear that it was important for Moscow to preserve the agreements of November 10 and strictly adhere to the implementation of its provisions. At the same time, in Baku, Lavrov shared the concern of the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev about the revanchist sentiments of Armenia, saying that the military settlement of the Garabagh problem is a closed issue.

However, starting from May 12, taking advantage of the actions of Azerbaijan to restore a border section around the mountainous lake Ishigly Garagol, Armenians raised the border issue again. They claimed that Azerbaijan was allegedly violating the agreements and was advancing deep into the Armenian territory. Yerevan immediately interpreted the situation as a fact of aggression and made a public statement, without even consulting the Russian side, which also provides mediation assistance in resolving the issue. French President Emmanuel Macron immediately supported Yerevan by making it clear that it was ready to help Armenia.

The situation has escalated immediately after that. On May 14, Pashinyan sent a letter to the Russian President Vladimir Putin with a request for military assistance, and also officially applied to CSTO for the immediate activation of the emergency consultation mechanism in order to coordinate the positions of the CSTO member states and take measures to eliminate the “threat”. It is doubtful that Moscow was happy with the development of events, as it hardly has plans to invite other CSTO allies to the region, let alone France, a NATO member!

It is no coincidence that amid Yerevan's repeated attempts to present the situation around the Ishigly Garagol Lake as critical and to invite external players to resolve the issue, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry made an explicit statement: “There was no firing, no skirmish. Negotiations to de-escalate the situation were held in a peaceful manner. We were asked for assistance. And our military provided such assistance. The parties reached an agreement. I see no reason to create tension in the issue, which was possible to solve peacefully."

At the same time, Mr. Lavrov explicitly hinted that only Moscow has military topographic maps of the region, and only Russian military specialists can provide concrete assistance in solving the perspective problems.

Also, Russia is by no means interested in the US involvement in the ongoing processes. After all, the key leaders in charge of the US foreign policy have already held telephone conversations with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and offered their assistance. Baku tactfully refuses external assistance, while Yerevan pretends that it could use it when possible. Apparently, the Russian leadership cannot be pleased with the latter circumstance.

By the way, it is important for Pashinyan to maintain such sentiments until the end of the scheduled elections, thereby reducing the chances of pro-Russian opposition to take revenge for the defeat three years ago. On the other hand, this gives his Western colleagues a chance to indirectly discredit the CSTO as an organisation that is allegedly incapable of providing assistance to one of its member states. In this situation, Pashinyan deliberately plays on the western field, which annoys the Kremlin even more.

Facing irreversible changes

No matter how the situation develops, one cannot reverse the ongoing process. Undoubtedly, despite the provocative actions of Yerevan, Azerbaijan will complete the demarcation of its part of the state border and return under control all its border territories, including the exclaves. And Moscow, despite Yerevan's obsessive appeals for assistance, makes it increasingly clear that it is ready to provide assistance to both sides to continue the process of border demarcation.

Recently, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko said that Russia would render assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan in resolving tensions on the border, if such a request comes from both states. Minister Sergei Lavrov proposed creating a bilateral Armenian-Azerbaijani delimitation commission, as well as assistance to create such a commission. Telephone conversation between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia on May 19 to resolve the border problems put the final point in the Armenian speculations on the possible involvement of Russia and CSTO. Issues related to the post-conflict situation in the region were discussed with an emphasis on solving practical tasks to ensure security and stability in full accordance with the letter and spirit of the trilateral statements of November 10, 2020 and January 11, 2021. At the same time, Mr. Putin noted that Russia would continue mediation efforts and provide advisory assistance aimed at reaching an agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on launching the process of delimitation and demarcation of the state border. Presidents agreed that the settlement should be carried out exclusively by political and diplomatic methods. Thus, we can assume that the idea of Armenian authorities to disrupt the trilateral agreements has failed miserably. It is also safe to assume that there will be no revision of the results of the Second Garabagh War.

Moreover, the unblocking of communications is in full swing. At least on the Azerbaijani territory, where the construction of railway and automobile communication lines continue.

Recently, the former Armenian Ambassador to Italy Mikael Minasyan leaked a document, which has become of special relevance. It deals precisely with the creation of a commission for the delimitation and demarcation of borders between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Text of the document contains provisions that give grounds to believe that in the very near future the parties will have to agree on a commission that will resolve specific issues related to delimitation and demarcation.

At the same time, the process opens up prospects for unblocking all communications in the region, which causes particular concern in Armenia. Obviously, there was someone who handed over the draft document to Minasyan. And he made them public, which demonstrate the state of public institutions in Armenia. We will just add that the leakage of such documents is well paid. Plus the former leaders of Armenia do not mind to revenge and would be ready to pay for such a service. They hope to reverse the situation by creating the appearance that Pashinyan and his team are surrendering Armenia, while the logic of the post-conflict situation is forcing the Armenian leadership to change its approach.

Thus, the demarcation of borders and the unblocking of communication lines is inevitable, and both the Armenian political leadership and the opposition will have to tolerate it. Experience of recent decades shows that ignoring realities leads to irreparable consequences. We would like to believe that the Armenian society has learned the lessons of the past. Otherwise it will not escape new tribulations and upheavals.