The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Federate]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Holy crap, Aliyev looks more than ever like a monster in that picture with Putin.

[Armanen]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

On a side note to the negotiations between Sarkisyan and aliyev, I think Serj should bring up this issue...

Four Armenian citizens tortured in Azeri captivity

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Four Armenian citizens are subjected to tortures in Azerbaijan, said colonel Arshak Karapetyan, deputy chief of the RA armed forces general staff.

“We possess information that they are being physically and psychologically suppressed. The Azeri side wants to compel confession from captives that they are guerillas and planned a diversion in Azerbaijan,” colonel Karapetyan said, adding, “We never leave our citizens in trouble. Sooner or later they will all return to homeland.”

“Azeris do not keep in contact, making further talks impossible. If they want to change the rules, we will accept that and our response will be resolute,” he said.

For his part, RA Defense Minister’s spokesman, colonel Seyran Shahsuvaryan said that Azeris do not have any legal ground to accuse Armenian citizens of a diversion attempt. “They try to substantiate the arrest of our citizens by a law and allege that Armenians were detained according to the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry’s legislation,” he said.

“Actually, thirteen young men wanted a showdown with the commander of a friend. After the commander fired into the air they got into cars. Four of them (originally from Noraduz and Gavar) crossed the border accidentally. A criminal case was initiated,” colonel Shahsuvaryan concluded, Novosti Armenia reports.

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Regarding the "negotiations" -- I assume this is done for show for all the sides involved. Someone like me would say "what the xxxx is the point?".

Assuming that you are referring to the "negotiations" between Sargsyan and Aliev, yes, they are for show only. In other words, Azerbaijan simply cannot afford to openly state - we have lost Nagorno Karabagh for good. And us Armenians cannot make it seems as if we are not going to negotiate. Thus, this "process" will go no indefinitely. Nevertheless, the geopolitical status quo created by this situation is beneficial for us and for Azerbaijan. For us because we will get to keep Nagorno Karabagh and for Azerbaijan because they will continue reaping the benefits of their oil/gas reserves. Naturally, the guaranteer of peace and stability in the region is none other than Moscow. Pay close attention to the statements Russian officials and experts are making regarding this issue and take a close look at what is actually occurring on the ground in the region today. Moscow is firmly reestablishing itself in the region. For its interests, Moscow will enforce the status quo that exsits between Armenia and Azerbaijan today. In essence, Moscow is using Baku against Yerevan and Yerevan against Baku. So Moscow has us both by the balls. And since we control Nagorno Karabagh, and since Russia are pumping in a lot of money into the Armenian economy, we don't mind Moscow handling our balls. Don't listen to the ignorant voices in our society, the fact of the matter is Moscow has done everything in their power to ensure that Armenia maintains its hold over Nagorno Karabagh. Moscow has absolutely no reason to weaken Armenia and every reason in the book to make sure Armenia remains a viable equalizer in the region. Moreover, Moscow has done more to keep Armenia afloat in the Caucasus than all the other nations of the world combined, including our vast diaspora. The only thing Moscow is seeking to change in the region is Tbilisi. With Tbilisi tamed we will finally have peace and stability in the region. Just give it some more time. I remain hopeful and my hope is specifically placed on the Kremlin. My only concern, however, is stability within the Russian Federation. For hundreds of years, the world has set its greedy sights, and sometimes bloody fangs, on Russia due to Russia's vast natural resources and strategic location. Thus, Russia, by nature, will always have major enemies. As a result, Russians will always have internal and external problems.

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

I have already read the first four chapters of the book by Yossef Bodansky, Chechen Jihad. Very interest, very informative. Some of the assessments or conclusions of the author, however, are either very naive - or disingenuous. Thus, quite a bit of reading between the lines is necessary. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised at Bodansky's persistent attempt to directly implicate Turkey and Pakistan in the bloody mess created in Chechnya. Georgia and Azerbaijan are also signaled out as playing major roles, with lesser roles being given to Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, Bodansky remains silent when it comes to US and European involvement. One story in the book that immediately caught my attention was the abduction and brutal murder of five Russian embassy personnel in Baghdad in June 2006.

According to Bodansky's narrative, after a long lull in Chechnya, the Chechen war council, the "Islamist-Jihadists" headed by Shamil Basayev, had decided to carry out a spectacular attack on world leaders attending the G-8 summit which was to be held in St. Petersburg, Russia. The operation's primary intention was to rekindle the flames of the Chechen insurgency which at the time had gone into decline. The Chechen leadership decided that it would first carry out a diversionary attack on Russian interests to throw-off Russian intelligence. After deliberation, it was decided that the attack against Russia was to be performed in Iraq, of all places, using what Bodansky calls "trusted jihadist resources" in the Baghdad area.

On June 8 2006, unidentified gunmen attacked a vehicle carrying five Russian embassy personnel. According to reports leaked out by US intelligence services soon after the abduction, the vehicle contained a security officer, an embassy staffer and three Russian secret service members. Here are two news reports from the time:

Gunmen attack car belonging to Russian Embassy in Iraq; diplomat killed

Baghdad (Associated Press) - Gunmen attacked a car belonging to the Russian Embassy in Baghdad on Saturday, killing one diplomat and kidnapping four employees, police and the Russian Foreign Ministry said. In a statement issued in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry said assailants attacked a diplomatic car carrying "workers of the Russian foreign service who were performing their official duties," killing one person and abducting four. The attack occurred at about 1:45 p.m. The statement said authorities were working with Iraqi and international authorities to secure the hostages' release. The statement did not give the names or the positions of the people killed or abducted. According to police, witnesses at the scene said gunmen opened fire on the car in west Baghdad's upscale Mansour district. Interior Ministry Lt.-Col. Falah al-Mohamedawi said one person was killed in the incident, which took place just outside the embassy. AP Television News footage showed a white SUV with tinted windows, diplomatic licence plates and a small tag that said "Russian Embassy" in English and Arabic. The sign had a bullet hole in it. An ambulance was seen driving into the embassy. There was no immediate comment from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. An official at the Russian Embassy in Baghdad confirmed the attack.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ssy-iraq_x.htm

Russian diplomat deaths confirmed

BBC - Russian diplomat deaths confirmed Russia has confirmed that four of its diplomats taken hostage in Iraq are dead, a day after a group announced their deaths in an internet video. The confirmation came after Russian experts checked the authenticity of the videotape released by the kidnappers. The Russian foreign ministry expressed "deep pain" that the kidnapping had ended "in an irremediable way" despite efforts to win their release. A group called the Mujahideen Shura Council released the hostage video. The insurgent umbrella group is linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq. The video showed one man being beheaded and another shot dead, as well as the body of a third, but there was no sign of the fourth hostage. The group had given Russia an ultimatum to withdraw from Chechnya and release Muslim prisoners from Russian jails - or the hostages would die. Chechen rebels said they had no links to the Iraqi group. The men were seized in Baghdad on 3 June, and the kidnappers said the executions were in revenge for "torture, killing and displacement by the infidel Russian government" in Chechnya.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5118702.stm

Here is a curious piece of information from Bodansky's book:

In carrying out this operation, the [Chechen] council stressed, it was putting the all-Islamic jihadist cause ahead of the interests of Iraq. "We know there will be appeals... to release those [Russian hostages] under the pretext that Russia took a clear stand in rejecting the [US-led] war on Iraq," the communique acknowledged. However, Moscow had already forfeited all goodwill by "sending its diplomats to Iraq in support of the Crusader project by America...

Bodansky claims that Russian officials, including Putin, made it a high priority to located those responsible for the murders of the Russian personnel. According to Bodansky, "U.S. security authorities in Baghdad declined to accommodate Russian efforts."

Later on in the book Bodansky insinuated that the US has been tolerant of the bloody jihad being waged by the Chechens merely due to Turkey's closeness to the movement, insinuating that the US reluctantly ignored the global dangers posed by the Chechen insurgency simply due to Washington's close alliance with Turkey.

This is what he has to say:

Even though the Turkish military elite is essentially anti-Islamic, this pan-Turkic nostalgia has undergirded Ankara's commitment to the Chechen revolt, and it endures despite the Islamist-Jihadist nature of Chechenization. A steady stream of Turkish volunteers-most of whom are highly trained military veterans-continues to fill jihadist ranks today, even as Ankara ignores the Islamist support for Chechnya and the drug trade that funds the jihad. The growth of pan-Turkism also had major political ramifications for the West, and especially for the United States. Washington has long considered Turkey an ally, a status that survived even the crisis over access to Iraq that began in 2003. At first this traditional alliance led the West to extend some support to the Chechen rebellion. Even today, this legacy provides a reluctant Bush administration with a fig-leaf excuse for not confronting the Chechen threat head-on, despite its immersion in a war on terrorism that has been aggravated by the spread of Chechenization.

In other words Turkey got involved with the Chechen movement merely as a result of "nostalgia". In my opinion, the analysis above regarding why a militantly secular Turkey fully supports a militant jihadist movement and why the US tolerates Chechen terrorism is very implausible to say the least. Bodansky utterly fails to convince here.

As a matter of fact, I believe that US intelligence services either had a hand in the operation to murder the Russian embassy personnel (at least three of whom were intelligence agents) or had precise information regarding their abductors which they refused to share with Russian authorities. Nonetheless, US officials clearly refused to help their Russian counterparts when Russians needed help in fighting "Islamic Terrorism".

Note: A similar incident occurred in Lebanon in 1985. At the time it was CIA backed Palestinians doing the abducting of Russian embassy personnel. However, the might of the Soviet Union at the time put a quick stop to it.

Anyway, Bodansky goes on to describe in the book how a highly sophisticated Russian operation utilizing intelligence agents working deep inside the Chechen chain-of-command put a stop to the planned attack against world leaders at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg by killing the terrorist mastermind, Shamil Basayev, and other high level militants. This operation was a turning point in Russia's decade long struggle in the region for it dealt a final deathblow to the jihadist movement in Chechnya.

At this time I would like to bring your attention to a curious incident that occurred on January 26, 2007 in Karbala Iraq. In my opinion, this incident may have been connected to what occurred to the Russians in Baghdad six months prior:

Soldiers killed in Karbala were first abducted

In perhaps the boldest and most sophisticated attack in four years of warfare, gunmen speaking English, wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons abducted four U.S. soldiers last week at the provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city of Karbala and then shot them to death. The U.S. military confirmed a report earlier Friday by The Associated Press that three of the soldiers were dead and one was mortally wounded with a gunshot to the head when they were found in a neighboring province, about 25 miles from the compound where they were captured. A fifth soldier was killed in the initial attack on the compound.

The brazen assault, 50 miles south of Baghdad, was conducted by nine to 12 gunmen posing as an American security team, the military confirmed. The attackers traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles (the type used by U.S. government convoys), had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues, and spoke English, according to two senior U.S. military officials as well as Iraqi officials.

None of the American or Iraqi officials would allow use of their names because of the sensitive nature of the information. The confirmation came after nearly a week of inquiries. The U.S. military in Baghdad initially did not respond to repeated requests for comment on reports that began emerging from Iraqi government and military officials on the abduction and a major breakdown in security at the Karbala site. Within hours of the AP report that four of the five dead soldiers had been abducted and found dead or dying about 25 miles east of Karbala, the military issued a long account of what took place.

"The precision of the attack, the equipment used and the possible use of explosives to destroy the military vehicles in the compound suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution," said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, spokesman for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound," he said. "We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault."

Iraqi officials said the approaching convoy of black GMC Suburbans was waved through an Iraqi checkpoint at the edge of the city. The Iraqi soldiers believed it to be American because of the type of vehicles, the distinctive camouflage American uniforms and the fact that they spoke English. One Iraqi official said the leader of the assault team was blond, but no other official confirmed that.

A top Iraqi security official for Karbala province told the AP that the Iraqi guards at the checkpoint radioed ahead to the governor's compound to alert their compatriots that the convoy was on its way. Iraqi officials said the attackers' convoy divided upon arrival, with some vehicles parking at the back of the main building where the meeting was taking place, and others parking in front. The attackers threw a grenade and opened fire with automatic rifles as they grabbed two soldiers inside the compound. Then the guerrilla assault team jumped on top of an armored U.S. Humvee and captured two more soldiers, the U.S. military officials said. In its statement, the U.S. military said one soldier was killed and three were wounded by a "hand grenade thrown into the center's main office which contains the provincial police chief's office on an upper floor."

The attackers captured four soldiers and fled with them and the computer east toward Mahawil in Babil province, crossing the Euphrates River, the U.S. military officials said. The Iraqi officials said the four were captured alive and shot just before the vehicles were abandoned. Police, who became suspicious when the convoy of attackers and their American captives did not stop at a roadblock, chased the vehicles and found the bodies, the gear and the abandoned SUVs. The military statement said: "Two soldiers were found handcuffed together in the back of one of the SUVs. Both had suffered gunshot wounds and were dead. A third soldier was found shot and dead on the ground. Nearby, the fourth soldier was still alive, despite a gunshot wound to the head." The wounded soldier was rushed to the hospital by Iraqi police but died on the way, the military said.

The military also said Iraqi police had found five SUVs, U.S. Army-type combat uniforms, boots, radios and a non-U.S. made rifle at the scene. Three days after the killings, the U.S. military in Baghdad announced the arrest of four suspects in the attack and said they were detained on a tip from a Karbala resident. No further information was released about the suspects. Friday's military statement referred to the attackers as "insurgents," which usually suggests Sunnis. Although Karbala province is predominantly Shiite, Babil province is heavily populated by Sunnis in the north, near Baghdad. Babil's central and southern regions are largely Shiite. A senior Iraqi military official said the sophistication of the attack led him to believe it was the work of Iranian intelligence agents in conjunction with Iraq's Shiite Mahdi Army militia, which Iran funds, arms and trains.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...adiction_x.htm

I may be wrong but this highly professional operation (nothing like it seen in Iraq at the time or ever since) had the distinct fingerprints of a classic GRU operation. Passing off as Americans, speaking English, a blond team leader, highly professional/highly precise military strike, abducting and killing five mid-level American officers...

Was this operation a way to thank US officials for their 'help' six months prior?

Something to think about.

[Armanen]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

I may be wrong but this highly professional operation (nothing like it seen in the Iraq until then or ever since) had the fingerprints of a classic GRU operation. Passing off as Americans, speaking English, a blond operative, highly professional military strike, abducting and killing five mid-level American officers... Perhaps this was a way to thank US officials for their help. Something to think about.

That's a very plausable theory, or it could have been an american group. One reason why I think it could have been americans is due to the nature of the attack but also as the article mentions, bush (at the time) wanted to go ahead with a surge which was very unpopular. I'm sure in either case there was more to it then we could ever guess with the little amount of info we have.

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

That's a very plausable theory, or it could have been an american group. One reason why I think it could have been americans is due to the nature of the attack but also as the article mentions, bush (at the time) wanted to go ahead with a surge which was very unpopular. I'm sure in either case there was more to it then we could ever guess with the little amount of info we have.

I strongly doubt it was US special forces. I don't think Americans would have dared to attempt something like that. Take into concideration that had the attacked failed it would have been nothing less-than catastrophic for the Bush administration. Politically, the US had already been on very thin ice regarding the war in Iraq. What's more, if you recall US officials at the time suppressed information concerning the operation. They were eager to bury the news, not make it public. A strategic project like organizing the "surge" could not have been dependent upon a highly sensitive/highly risky operation such as this. The types of attacks that are carried out to goad the public are usually designed to be very 'spectacular' in nature. This operation was a highly sophisticated 'precision strike' against American officers deep inside Shiite territory in Iraq. If this was not the work of the Russian GRU then it must have been the work of Iranian special forces. There is no other explanation to what occurred. However, I somehow sense it was the Russians.

[Armanen]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

I strongly doubt it was US special forces. I don't think Americans would have dared to attempt something like that. Take into concideration that had the attacked failed it would have been nothing less-than catastrophic for the Bush administration. Politically, the US had already been on very thin ice regarding the war in Iraq. What's more, if you recall US officials at the time suppressed information concerning the operation. They were eager to bury the news, not make it public. A strategic project like organizing the "surge" could not have been dependent upon a highly sensitive/highly risky operation such as this. The types of attacks that are carried out to goad the public are usually designed to be very 'spectacular' in nature. This operation was a highly sophisticated 'precision strike' against American officers deep inside Shiite territory in Iraq. If this was not the work of the Russian GRU then it must have been the work of Iranian special forces. There is no other explanation to what occurred. However, I somehow sense it was the Russians.

Good points enker! The sheeple do love to see "fireworks" and this was not up to their level.

[Mos]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russia! Iran! forever! our friends and brothers! down with all who oppose us and them!

[Angessa]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russia! Iran! forever! our friends and brothers! down with all who oppose us and them!

Do not forget about Syria, I find they like us very much and stand by us( more so the orthodox Syrians) They also stand by Serbia with Kosovo.

I would like to believe that was a response from Russian special forces, it would seem there style but would need more proof before believe it was them( which would be impossible) But Russia does fit the only role, why would Iran target those militery officials or who else's would of done that attack?( I like your new Icon)

Armenian's what was your Opinion on Kosovo also? I believe it was unjust and illegal, the Albanians had no history or historic ties to the land as the Serbians have. The Serbians just have been killed of by wars and clenseing and Albanians supported by west took over the land. I wish we take aggression stand and send soldiers into Kosovo. I know my Kuban Host is planing on sending Units into Kosovo to fight for Serbia

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

DMITRY MEDVEDEV INVITED SERZH SARGSIAN TO PAY OFFICIAL CALL TO MOSCOW

On June 4 the RA President Serzh Sargsian held a meeting with Russia’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Armenia Nikolay Pavlov. According to the information DE FACTO received at the RA President’s Press Office, in the course of the meeting the Russian Ambassador delivered RF President Dmitry Medvedev’s invitation to pay official call to Moscow in mid June to Serzh Sargsian.

Source: http://www.defacto.am/index.php?OP=71335757

‘Talks’ before Talks: Russia buoys up Armenia stand ahead of first Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting

Russia reaffirmed late last week that it wants to see a resumed Karabakh peace process based on direct negotiations between the parties and proceeding within a Minsk Group-supported format. “There is no military solution to the Karabakh problem,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said following a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Eduard Nalbandyan in Moscow late last week. “It is possible to reach agreement only in direct negotiations between the parties with the support of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen.” “It is important to make the region stable and secure,” Nalbandyan said for his part. “Armenia is ready to continue negotiations with Azerbaijan on the basis of proposals of the Minsk Group cochairmen.” Another meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan is expected to be held on the sidelines of an international economic forum in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, at the end of this week.

While the presidents of the two states have met more than 20 times since 1998, the upcoming meeting tentatively scheduled for June 6 will be the first one between Serzh Sargsyan, who was sworn in as Armenia’s new president less than two months ago, and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev. “We wait for Azerbaijani proposals, which may help resolve the Karabakh conflict,” Nalbandyan reportedly said, voicing optimism ahead of the planned meeting of the two countries’ leaders. “Proposals of Russia, the United States and France [the countries co-chairing the Minsk Group] must not be ignored.” Few analysts, however, expect the meeting to produce any fundamentally new results. In particular, Nagorno-Karabakh President Bako Sahakyan recently said in Yerevan that he did not consider the upcoming meeting to be “a great achievement”.

And Baku’s fundamental position of seeking “to restore control over the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh” was recently reaffirmed by Azerbaijan’s deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov. He said that Azerbaijan’s compromise might be “providing the communities that will live in Nagorno-Karabakh with a self-governing status.” Meanwhile, representatives of third countries and structures have shown far greater activity on the threshold of the Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting. Thus, Council of Europe Secretary-General Terry Davis reiterated that when acceding to the Council of Europe both Armenia and Azerbaijan pledged to resolve the conflict peacefully. “I feel very alarmed when I hear that peaceful means of settlement have been exhausted,” Davis said, adding that the obligations to the CE will be broken if hostilities resume.

Source: http://armenianow.com/?action=viewAr...g=eng&IID=1189

Mubariz Ahmedoghlu: "Armenia is Russia's break lever in the development of Azerbaijan and Georgia"

Russia controls the South Caucasus region by means of Armenia, said chief of the center for political innovations and technologies Mubariz Ahmedoghlu at a press conference today.

He noted that such comments are made by heads of leading mass medias of Russia and there can be nothing more humiliating for any state, in this case for Armenia. "It means that Armenia is a break lever for Russia in the development of the South Caucasus region-Azerbaijan and Georgia. If Russia's relations with Georgia are worsening, the relations between Armenia and Georgia are becoming tense as well", said Ahmedoghlu. According to the political scientist, Azerbaijan should be more attentive about the events, ongoing between Georgia and Russia as the latter has already initiated execution of plans of annexation of Georgian territories-Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "Russia does not intend to recognize independence of separatist republics Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Official Moscow has already started implementation of a plan for annexation of these lands to Russia. How else can we explain the deployment of Russia railway troops in Abkhazia. This is made in the framework of the preparations for Olympic games in Sochi, Russia will hold. In other words, Russia perceives Abkhazia as its territory and uses these territory as it wills", said Ahmedoghlu.

Source: http://www.today.az/news/politics/45476.html

Sergey Markedonov: "We will not make it up with Armenians for you"

Day.Az interview with Sergey Markedonov, famous Russian political scientist, chief of department for international relations of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis.

- What do you think about the meeting of Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to be held in Saint-Petersburg?

The forthcoming meeting of the two president will be of psychological nature. Serzh Sarkissyan has just won the presidential elections. The meeting was also prepared by newly appointed Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan. It should be taken into account that the meeting of the two Presidents will be held on the background of the recent undesired events, evidencing, sharp worsening of bilateral relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Here, we can recall the large armed clash of March 5 of 2008 on the contact front line, fixed since the moment of ceasefire agreement signing, discussion of the Karabakh problem in the UN General Assembly, declaration of the Armenian parliament about the need for closer cooperation between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, which means a period of tough counteraction between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

- What is expected from the meeting of the presidents?

Perhaps, there are expectations that "a new leader may turn out to be more compliant"? Each new leader also wants to attain a breakthrough. This can also be applied to Dmitri Medvedev in Russia and Serzh Sarkissyan in Armenia. At the same time, both Medvedev and Sarkissyan are only formal newcomers. Armenian President has serious political experience. He has been the defense Minister and the Prime Minister. Sarkissyan is biographically connected with Nagorno Karabakh, where he started his career. As for the Russian President, he is a member of Vladimir Putin's team, who has not left the politics and continues to influence the Kremlin's external policy. I do not think that a breakthrough will be attained during the meeting in Saint Petersburg. The meeting is more likely to be accompanied by information war, high expectations and similarly high disappoinment. The circle of positions will be repeated.

- Why?

Because the positions of the parties are mutually exclusive. For Azerbaijan this is primarily Armenia's aggression and for Armenia is the fight of Nagorno Karabakh people for self-determination. These factors do not give hope for any serious breakthrough in the negotiation process. Anyway, a meeting of the presidents is better than hostilities. But one should not expect a breathrough during the meeting.

- Doesn't the newly elected president of Russia, who undertook to arrange the meeting of the two Presidents of the conflicting countries, attempt to demonstrate Moscow's role to settle frozen conflicts on the post-Soviet area.

Kremlin's role in the Caucasus region has not been defined by the election of Dmitri Medvedev as president. Russia's role in this region started to grow under Yeltsin. Ceasefire in Nagorno Karabakh conflict was attained owing to the Russian diplomacy. Vladimir Putin has also been active in this direction. Former Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov, being in Baku twice, spoke of deployment of Russian peacekeeping forces in the conflict area. Last year the meeting of Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan was held in Saint Petersbug on the same day during the informal summit of the CIS. As is seen, Moscow's active participation in the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict started long before Medvedev was elected a Presidemt. Russia is also partially a Caucasus state. Most processes, related to Nagorno Karabakh, may affect the security of Moscow itself. Both Armenians and Azerbaijanis are among top ten large ethnic communities of Russia. Therefore, Moscow's interest is understandable. The Kremlin, as a USSR successor, also bears responsibility for political security on the post-Soviet area. I do not think that this is exclusively Dmitri Medvedev's PR campaign. Russian can not limit its activity by the OSCE Minsk Group framework. Moscow tries to take the peacekeeping position.

- Do you agree that the key to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement is in the Kremlin?

No, I do not. The key to it is in Washington, Brussels, the United Nations and in Nagorno Karabakh, like in Transdniestria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Until the sides are ready for minimal compromise, external attempts will not be successful. External attempts could be more active and effective. Anyway, everything depends on the sides. We will not make it up with Armenians for you.

Source: http://www.today.az/news/politics/45460.html