End of separatism in Garabagh: signing peace and border agreements is best for Pashinyan
By Abdul Karimkhanov
On September 20, the surrender of the Armenian separatists was actually proclaimed, and on the conditions that Baku had repeatedly put forward earlier. The question remains: what prevented the Armenians from attacking them at least in August, and avoiding casualties? And the answer can be immediately given - the reluctance of a number of politicians to sacrifice their prestige and status. In the end, they paid for all the deadliest provocations. And the same “residents of Garabagh”. Following the document of surrender, the question of the existence of “artsakh” became closed.
According to Azernews, well-known Russian political analyst and publicist Andrei Nikulin told Day.az that Azerbaijan's anti-terrorist measures put a full stop to all the allegations of the separatist regime in Azerbaijan's Garabagh economic region.
“The issues of ensuring the livelihoods of the population of Garabagh within the framework of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, spelled out in the text, indicate in simple language that there is now no “administration”, no “newly elected president”, no “self-defense forces”, but there is only a maximum - a commission for the transfer of territories with the property. And there are still people who now live not in “NKR”, but on Azerbaijani soil, who have the right to receive Azerbaijani passports and exist within the framework of the Azerbaijani legal system,” he said.
According to him, official Baku received exactly what it demanded before the start of anti-terrorist measures.
“Why should Russian peacekeepers stay in Garabagh now? Most likely, to ensure the transfer of control over the territory, the disarmament of Armenian forces, and the removal of residents who do not want to become Azerbaijani citizens to Armenia. After this, there will be no point in deploying “peacekeepers”,” the political analyst emphasized.
As the pundit noted, the very history of the existence of “independent Artsakh” should be considered complete.
“But a long and sad tale begins about a new wave of Garabagh refugees and the “Karabakh government in exile”, through which Moscow will try to put pressure on internal Armenian politics, or at least expects to do so. Unless, of course, Pashinyan succeeds in reducing Russian influence in Armenia to zero," Nikulin added.
The Russian political scientist believes that Pashinyan will raise the rhetoric of the need to break with Russia and that the entire recent diplomatic history needs to be crossed out and written from scratch.
“Moscow will continue to try to overthrow the intractable Armenian leader and replace him with his protege. Both Yerevan and Moscow will reproach each other for betrayal, but the verdict will have to be made by the residents of Armenia, many of whom have already formed their position,” he noted.
At the same time, our interlocutor continued, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict itself is not over. There are still issues of border demarcation, the notorious corridor to Nakhchivan, and the signing of a peace treaty.
“The negotiation track will have to start from scratch. At least that’s what official Yerevan will say. Baku will continue the already repeatedly applied and recognized successful practice of forceful pressure,” he noted.
In conclusion, the Russian expert said that of the many worst-case scenarios, the best for Pashinyan is the signing of all peace and border agreements as quickly as possible, albeit conceding in many respects to the Azerbaijani side.
“Because, as we have seen over the past three years, each subsequent phase of the conflict and negotiations starts from the worst positions for Yerevan. What can be achieved now will be unattainable next spring. And the only thing that can be done now is to solve, even if at a very high cost the issue of war, remove by signing peace treaties and broad international guarantees for the final document the risks of resuming Azerbaijani attacks on direct Armenian territory, accept and accommodate refugees and start writing the history of Armenia from scratch. Yes, this is a difficult decision, but there are alternatives even harder,” Andrei Nikulin concluded.
---
Follow us on Twitter @AzerNewsAz