Pashinyan finally disavowed the agreement of November 9.11.2020, XNUMX following the results of the second Karabakh war
math game
On January 13, apparently deciding to congratulate Russia on the New Year according to the old style, Prime Minister of Armenia N. Pashinyan uttered the following text:
“In the tripartite statement of November 9, 2020, it is not stated anywhere that we should open the so-called “Zangezur Corridor.” If someone finds such a clause in this document, then I promise a monetary reward, but this is not in this document.”
Since the text of the document does not contain the name “Zangezur Corridor” (the route that should connect the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic with “mainland” Azerbaijan), and Baku refers to the fact that this is a recognized term like the “North-South corridor,” N. Pashinyan suggests:
“To get out of this game of words, we say that we are ready to provide communications on the same terms on which Iran provides communications between Nakhichevan and the rest of Azerbaijan.”
And generally speaking.
“The actions that were taken in Nagorno-Karabakh with the participation of the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan indicate that for them this document no longer exists.” “Nowhere is it written that the Russian Federation must ensure the security of communications on any territory of Armenia. On the contrary, it is written that Armenia guarantees security on its territory.”
Let us put aside the fact that clause 9 of the Tripartite Agreement dated November 9.11.2020, XNUMX literally states the following.
“All economic and transport connections in the region will be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia guarantees the safety of transport communications between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in order to organize the unhindered movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions. Control over transport communications is carried out by the Border Service of the FSB of Russia.”
This means that nowhere is it written that “the Russian Federation should not provide security.” Written. But it turns out that the document no longer exists - N. Pashinyan annulled it, essentially withdrawing from the agreement of November 9.11.2020, XNUMX.
Last March in article “Is it possible to outplay the United States in the Caucasus direction?” the author examined the situation around Karabakh and the Lachin corridor, where our peacekeepers were then in a strange position between a rock and a hard place, from the point of view of a mathematical game. The reason then was, in addition to the situation with the peacekeepers, story with the ratification by Armenia of the so-called. "Statute of Rome" (the notorious "The Hague").
The fact that Russia is forced to play a mathematical game can be clearly seen if the steps of all the main participants are written out and synchronized in time. Just doing this is tedious and difficult, because there are eight participants: Armenia, Turkey - Azerbaijan, Iran, EU, USA, France, UK, Russia. That's a lot.
But the problem is not even the number of players. And the fact is that the condition initially stipulates that the player knowingly and with his consent “Armenia” receives “0” at the end of the game. That is, anyone who cooperates with Yerevan under the leadership of N. Pashinyan in the game ultimately gives their resources for the result to N. Pashinyan.
Orange slices
Let's imagine a kindergarten where a group of eight children were given an orange with slices. With each move, the children exchange one slice. Russia plays together with Armenia in a cooperative strategy, where one player must make up for the other’s share as necessary. But what to do if the player Armenia gives away a slice of orange every time, and then immediately makes up for it through “cooperation”.
It is not very difficult to guess that in one of the iterations of the game, and the first of all, the “partner” – Russia – breaks even. If N. Pashinyan gives every time, then his partner makes up for it every time. And then the game ends. This is because one of the players initially set the task of remaining without orange slices. As a result, the six remaining players grew in pieces, not even in the amount of eight pieces distributed between them, but as many as sixteen.
This story with slices is not at all as simple as it seems at first glance, and is usually described even in cases on investment risks. Sometimes this can turn into a kind of multiplier trap. And this is even without the condition that one player is deliberately aiming to lose.
But there is also a more everyday description of the situation, like the “Pious Martha and Dependent” problem, when Pious Martha gives money until she runs out of it. However, even Martha does not reach “0” here, since she still has the option of increasing “piety points.”
Russia was forced to divide its strategy in response, trying to cooperate either with Baku or with Tehran, but there was and could not be any result other than the same movement towards “0”, playing at the same time on the side of N. Pashinyan. After all, the player Yerevan, in any case, each time had to make up for the orange slice he gave.
Mathematically, here either Armenia becomes Russia, and then the result of the matrix for it is: “not equal to 0,” or Russia in any combination in cooperation with Armenia receives: “equal to 0.”
The EU, USA, France, and Great Britain seem to be on N. Pashinyan’s side, but if you remove the outer cover of information and look at the specific steps, there is no cooperation with Yerevan, there is a set of separate individual strategies.
And no one except Russia needs a cooperative strategy with Armenia, since not only these players, but also N. Pashinyan himself knows that the result for Yerevan is the same: “equal to 0.” All this can be described more simply or even more complicated, but this will not change the result.
Therefore, every time the author began to work on the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh and the complex of relations around it, he was haunted by the thought that some separate Western team was working here, which was simply working out experimental computer modeling on a specific “case”. This is quite different from other conflict points - too “matrix”.
This is exactly why last March the author wrote that Russia has “several months” in the region to change its strategy and leave the game, shifting it to negotiations between Tehran and Ankara.
Actually, “in a few months” it turned out to be in September, when Baku chose the time and carried out an operation to reintegrate Nagorno-Karabakh in two weeks.
Azerbaijan surprisingly quickly resolved all issues regarding Karabakh, and the last stone in this construction remains the Zangezur route.
And here we can remember how many forecasting sessions from the central channels we observed in the spring and summer, when respected experts, our mastodons, talked about the fact that due to the financial crisis, inflation and the consequences of the earthquake, Turkey would withdraw from international politics, R. Erdogan does not win, he will not be able to provide support to Baku for a long time. So what: didn’t win, didn’t support, did he withdraw from active politics?
No, he didn't leave. The orange slices in N. Pashinyan’s hands are getting smaller each time. And now he has finally disavowed the agreement with Baku, nullifying clause 9 and literally inviting Turkey and Azerbaijan to “decisively resolve” the issue with the Zangezur corridor. In this regard, Moscow looks simply exceptionally pale with its base in Gyumri and Armenia in the CSTO. And N. Pashinyan is ready to give out oranges to the last. But these are the rules of the game, we play on the same side with the one who decided to lose.
What will Russia's actions be if Baku, citing a violation of the norms of the 2020 agreement, moves force across the border? Bilateral issue between Baku and Yerevan. And in fact?
And that’s typical. Whenever Baku retreats or pretends to retreat and loosen its grip (as last fall, when it was officially announced that the Zangezur corridor had lost its relevance and the route would pass through Iran), Yerevan immediately makes a sharp move towards an aggravation, which seems quite would not be necessary, but blames Russia on the responsibility. It gives a share to the French, then to Azerbaijan, then to the USA, then to the EU and immediately takes it away from the “corporate partner”. As a result, Moscow plays each step with a result of minus one (–1).
If everything is left as it is, then you don’t have to be a prophet to understand that if N. Pashinyan doesn’t get a reaction from Baku this time, then next time he will once again raise the stakes, such as steps to disavow those points of the peace treaty that have already agreed upon earlier, but there is still the issue of border enclave villages, the border as such. And again Moscow will be to blame, from which they will again ask for shares in return for those given. But the asset of orange slices in the game is not endless.
It should be noted that during all this time, neither Baku nor Ankara stopped building infrastructure for the Zangezur corridor. So in mid-December, Turkey and Azerbaijan reported that the road and railway were being built according to schedule - 80% and 45% had already been built. It seems that the route has lost its relevance, but not completely lost, as it turns out. It turns out that the shares given away do not disappear anywhere, but are redistributed. Who has the least in this game? Moscow, which is always to blame for everything.
There is a lot of publicity about arms supplies to Armenia and India, but in reality it is Russia that fulfills the signed contracts and is in this regard a donor to Armenia. If something happens, there is no doubt that they will tell us that Russia supplied “outdated”, “ineffective”, etc.
It is clear that the forceful opening of the Zangezur route, to which everything is heading, will strengthen Turkey’s position in the Caucasus, which would be generally undesirable to allow. But game scenarios that are not equal to “0” are not visible based on the results of what has already been done. And no matter how difficult it is to accept, Russia needs to end this game. Record the result and exit the game.
In terms of specific actions, this means curtailing all mediation formats, transferring them to a bilateral dialogue between Baku and Azerbaijan, and transferring the moderation of the process to Turkey and Iran. And then just wait, freezing any bilateral relations with Yerevan. It seems to be there, but it seems to be not, or almost not, or almost not at all. Do not react to attacks, do not offer mediation. This will at least disrupt the rhythm of the rest of the participants in this confusing process.
Addition
And one more important addition.
At the same time, in any discussions it is very desirable to narrow the scope of the historical context as much as possible - not to get involved at the level of diplomacy and the media in discussing situations beyond November 9.11.2020, XNUMX. To draw a line under this, Moscow is not going to discuss anything at all in the near future.
The historical aspect is the Achilles heel of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. It is one of the most difficult, both for a diplomat and for an observer. It is an endless labyrinth of historical claims that go back to the time of the Flood.
And in the literal sense, since when discussing the Zangezur corridor, one will inevitably encounter an opinion such as that the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic is not Azerbaijan, but the area where Noah built the first hut from the remains of the ark, and his great-grandson was the first Armenian. From the other side, we, in turn, learn that Yerevan is a historically Azerbaijani fortress city, the area around which was developed by the Armenians no later than 200 years ago.
The series of these historical battles, maps, opinions, disputes, claims is endless. Where was which stone, who was the first to plant a tree, who was the first to eat sheep cheese on which slope a thousand years ago. All this could be attributed to disputes between historians and ethnographers, if not for the conflict, which has lasted several decades, and modern Russia, which wanders in its labyrinths.
As soon as the historical aspect is attached, Russia immediately finds itself in an endless tangle of theses.
What is the most common public argument/claim against Russia from the active part of N. Pashinyan’s supporters? They say they didn’t come to the rescue in 2020 and 2023.
The card on the table that comes in response is the argument that Armenia itself did not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh. The card is put back - so Russia allegedly convinced the previous (before N. Pashinyan) leadership of Armenia not to recognize Karabakh.
The answer comes - why didn’t N. Pashinyan recognize Karabakh? Vice versa - because he would then have violated “international law” and agreements concluded on behalf of Armenia, but without it.
Need I say that the deck of cards is endless? There in the deck there will be about the times of the USSR, and about the time of the Civil War, and about the imperial period, pre-imperial - before Noah.
If we impose a limit on such discussions - November 9.11.2020, XNUMX, then such a game will lose its meaning, and we will have to decide on specifics.
Information