Arbak Khachatryan: “It is dangerous that our region’s problems and their solutions are moving onto a local plane”

First Informational’s interlocutor is expert Arbak Khachatryan (Russia, Moscow). — Mr. Khachatryan, in previous interviews you noted that the Minsk Group’s work is also becoming more difficult in the current geopolitical realities. Recently, Russia’s foreign minister said that France and the United States had refused to cooperate with Russia within this format. How do you envisage the process from here, and in what formats should unresolved issues be discussed? — If the Minsk Group is not working now, that does not mean Russia will look for other formats.

Moscow is occupied with Ukraine, and it is obvious that at this stage the Karabakh issue is secondary. Therefore, all statements are decorative, just as the Minsk Group has been for more than 20 years. However, it is dangerous that our region’s problems and their solutions are moving to a local plane. Whereas the guarantors were previously superpowers, they are now regional players. It would be very good if Armenia and Azerbaijan resolved issues without other states. At most, it could be Georgia, offering Tbilisi as a venue where the two states could resolve issues on the spot.

Before the war with Ukraine began, NATO was falling apart, but Russia did everything to strengthen that organization, and this is very likely in the case of Turkey as a NATO member as well. I had previously noted that Georgia would not act against Russia, and that is exactly what happened. So today, we have what we have. — During the Putin–Aliyev telephone conversation, Russia’s president said he would support signing a peace treaty. Do you consider such a treaty likely, and does Russia need a peace treaty to be signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

— After the visit to Europe, Armenia’s leadership’s statement about the Russian peacekeeping mission is noteworthy. In effect, the whole world is against Russia and considers it an aggressor, while Armenia speaks of Russia’s peacekeeping mission. A year ago, I said that with Nikol, Putin had “hit the jackpot,” and now we see the results. What happens in the future depends largely on Russia’s role in the world. Will powerful states enter into relations with it, or will everything come down to the destruction of humanity and an atomic bomb exploding somewhere?

— In any event, for many years we have seen that a state of peace here is not advantageous to Russia; otherwise, how else can it explain its presence in this region? — Of course, the question is provocative. Today it is very difficult to open a second front against Russia, especially if those countries are Muslim. Russia’s first mistake was that Turkey became a powerful country in the region. The Turkish factor is enormous now in the sense that this country has NATO’s most powerful forces. I have always wondered why the United States and France surrendered their positions in the Karabakh conflict so easily, and today they are reaping the consequences.

But we should not always look at what others do. What prevented Armenia, throughout these 20 years, from recognizing independence and incorporating Karabakh? Those “cunning of mind” took no steps; they only looted. — Now, against the background of Russia’s foreign minister’s statement, the French and American Minsk Group co-chairs are coming to Armenia. What does that mean? — Of course, they would like the Minsk Group’s work to be restored. France certainly would, while the United States’ relations with Turkey are of a somewhat different nature.

Outwardly they criticize, but very calmly allow NATO member Turkey to use weapons in Karabakh. How do you explain this criminal silence? But today, Lavrov has the right to speak that way, because they managed to stop the war. I often disagree with Lavrov’s statements, but the fact is that it was Russia that stopped the war, regardless of the price. 1in