Sunday, March 6 2016 12:48

 The Russian-Turkish confrontation has already made Moscow weigh denunciation of the Moscow Treaty, while Ankara rejects the terms of Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. What will this “war of treaties” result in, given that President Vladimir Putin refuses from direct talks with his Turkish opposite number Recep Erdogan?

 

The Moscow Treaty and the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca are outdated enough.  However, I think they will not be denounced yet, as they cover the acute issues of all times – territorial borders. Refusing from these treaties in the current tense situation may just escalate the tensions in the region, which is not within the interests of anyone, including Armenia with its unresolved conflict over Nagorny Karabakh.  I understand the feelings of the Armenian people, but it is necessary to wait until the situation becomes stable to think and act without emotions. I think the “war of treaties” is over, the sides will be just “pinpricking” each other now.  As for the talks with Erdogan, I think contacts with him would be possible if he apologized for the shot down SU-24 Russian warplane. Such step would not look as annihilation, it will be an expression of humane regret and condolence. It appears that Turkey was ready for such an act of aggression against Russia and just waited for the right moment. It is not for nothing that Ankara refused to sign a memorandum with Moscow to prevent possible incidents with warplanes over Syria. Russia and U.S. signed a similar agreement on October 20 2015 i.e. yet before the incident with Su-24. In addition, the Turkish leaders still provide obscure explanations of the incident.

 

 

 Russia continues its military buildup in Armenia. Is it caused by the growing confrontation with Turkey or there are other politico-military reasons?

 

As it was already mentioned the situation in the region is rather tense. It is rather difficult to predict where the militants will go - to Nagorno-Karabakh or to the North Caucasus - after being driven out of Syria. Social networks have already declared Russia as target number one for Daesh. Turkey itself may undergo collapse and civil war. Under these circumstances, the duty of Russia as a CSTO member is to help Armenia strengthen its security in the face of the common threats to both countries.

 

 

Russia, Iran, Turkey and now Saudi Arabia too, have stuck in Syria – the epicenter of the Greater Middle East chaos. Meantime, there is no U.S. military in the Syrian territory so far, though Washington regularly says, “it will bring order to that country and overthrow Assad.” Don’t you see any paradox here?

 

 

United States have cherished plans to redraft the borders of the Great Middle East for a long time already. Look at the map of the region’s future – such maps have been repeatedly published by analytical centers of the U.S., Turkey and others countries. You will find on those maps Free Kurdistan, Sunnite Iraq etc. For Armenia, for instance, the supposed separation of large territories from Iraq and establishment of the “United” Azerbaijani state will bring nothing good. Armenia will find itself surrounded by Kurdistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia, with the population of the first two states to total some 30,000 million people.

 

Yet no so long ago, everything run to plan. They created Daesh to settle among others the tasks of Washington in the Middle East. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and others actively supported Daesh with hope to benefit from Syria’s collapse. Daesh is a kind of “joint stock company” with a big number of depositors. However, Moscow has spoiled their plans.

 

Washington agreed on joint efforts with Moscow to stabilize the situation in Syria only after losing control over it. One could hardly imagine this before the launch of Russia's Aerospace Force operation in Syria when the United States refused any peace process. As for the involvement of the U.S. ground forces in the settlement of the Syrian conflict, I think, it is hardly possible within the near future, given the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think that after being awarded Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama would like to leave the White House not as a peacekeeper, but as organizer of another slaughter in the Middle East with obscure consequences of the U.S. In this light, the presidential campaign is the United State should not be neglected either.  How long will last the current fragile ceasefire in Syria?

The current fragile ceasefire in Syria is a result of the actions of Russia and its allies, first. All the parties to the conflict are tired and need a timeout to restore forces, assess the situation and plan their next actions. Anti-Assad forces will attempt to break the ceasefire if they understand that they cannot achieve their goals in conditions of the peace process and through free elections in Syria and if they feel confident in their forces. Stabilization of the situation in the county means to keep the existing borders in the region, while many do not want this.

 

The United States and Russia, as co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG)  and ISSG Ceasefire Task Force, announce the adoption on February 22, 2016, of the Terms for a Cessation of Hostilities in Syria attached as an Annex to this statement, and propose that the cessation of hostilities commence at 00:00 (Damascus time) on February 27, 2016. The cessation of hostilities is to be applied to those parties to the Syrian conflict that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of its terms. Consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the statements of the ISSG, the cessation of hostilities does not apply to "Daesh", "Jabhat al- Nusra", or other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council.  The final goal of the national reconciliation is to create the necessary conditions for development of a dialogue between the political forces interested to unify the people and shift to peaceful life.

 

 

 

What are the real reasons of the conflict between Iran that gradually comes out from international isolation and Saudi Arabia? Which are the prospects of its spillover into other countries and what is Washington’s role in this confrontation?

 

 

The key reason of the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia is the fight for leading positions in the region, which in my opinion will intensify in the future. Tehran will more insistently claim for leadership, aggravating the discrepancies with Riyadh.  We already see the signs of that fight in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia itself. The Tehran-Riyadh confrontation is most vividly observed in Syria, where the Saudis support the ISIS, whereas the Iranians support the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad.   As regards Washington's policy on the Iran-Saudi Arabia discrepancies, I think the U.S. policy is guided by the principle "Divide and Rule". The United States is trying to play upon these discrepancies and it is promoting its own interests in the Middle East under the guise of the Iranian threat. In particular, the U.S. is intensifying weapon sales to the monarchies of the Persian Gulf and deploying a joint air defense system in the region. 

 

 

Armenia and other countries of the South Caucasus are several hundred kilometers far from the epicenter of instability in the Middle East. Is the chaos there a threat to the security Yerevan? If yes, how this chaos may spillover into the territory of the South Caucasus republics?

 

 

In my opinion, if driven out of Syria, the Daesh militants may make their way to the Karabakh conflict zone via the territory of Turkey, which does not hesitate to support them. In this light, one should not neglect the Turkish authorities' fight against Kurds in Turkey, especially as the fight may develop into serious confrontation. The outgrowth of the conflict in Syria may result in its expansion into the territory of multi-ethnic Turkey, which is extremely dangerous. Moreover, any conflict results in a flow of refugees and in this case the refugees may also go to Armenia. I think the West may increase its pressure on Yerevan, making it change its policy and break off its relations with Russia.

 

 

The current relative hush in the Ukraine conflict, the sliding oil pricing and depreciating ruble have not stopped the Russian air strikes in Syria. The gradual lifting of the sanctions against Iran has proved the inefficiency of the sanction policy of U.S. and its allies in Europe. The recent visit of Henry Kissinger to Moscow showed that in Washington they comprehend the need to negotiate with Moscow. What do you anticipate in the U.S.-Russia relations?

 

 

Russia is getting stronger, more actively protecting its interests, which very often fail to coincide with the U.S. interests.  In my opinion, Moscow-Washington relations will undergo no considerable changes within the next 1.5 years at least until the new Administration of the United States forms its policy. The sanctions against Russia will not be lifted and the military and information pressure will be increased.  The evidence is the deployment of new military bases and air defense systems along our borders and the intensive development of anti-Russian concepts and strategies in the United States and NATO. The blatant lie aimed at discrediting Russia will be spreading again. However, Russia had already experienced such confrontation before and I am sure that the country will not only resist the new challenges but will also overcome them.