"Maidan" in Nagorno-Karabakh?
В "New York Times" recently appeared an article by Brenda Shaffer (Brenda Shaffer), a professor of political science at the University of Haifa and a visiting researcher in Georgetown (USA).
In her opinion, Ukraine is “not the only place where Russia is going to stir up the water." Once the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1991 year, Moscow traditionally supports the separatists in the border states. The goal of the Kremlin is to force these states to accept Moscow dictate. And one of such attempts to impose one’s will is observed now in the South Caucasus, the political scientist believes.
In recent weeks, Moscow seems to be busy with the aggravation of the long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which it pretends to be a peacemaker for both states, the professor writes. Only in the first week of August, 40 Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers died in fierce battles near the border - and this happened "just before the summit convened by Russian President Vladimir Putin."
Brenda Schaeffer is confident that Russia "has found ways to maintain the conflict in a smoldering state." Russia has a reason to send in its troops: forcing the parties to peace. In the presence of Russian troops, none of the parties to the conflict can "work closely" with the West, "without fear of retaliation from Moscow," the political scientist concludes.
Further, she is outraged by the summit meeting that took place on 10 in August in Sochi, at which Mr. Putin sought to reach an agreement on the deployment of additional Russian "peacekeepers" (quotes in the original: "peacekeepers") between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Amazingly, Schaeffer writes how US officials reacted to this. Washington declared that he "welcomes" the summit under the auspices of Russia. “Has Washington not really learned the lessons of Georgia and Ukraine?” The author is indignant. And here he gives some advice to Obama.
In order to prevent the escalation of the conflict in the Caucasus and to take away from Putin "a pretext for a new land grab," the American president must "invite the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia to Washington and show that America has not abandoned the South Caucasus." Such a meeting, according to the scientist, would stimulate the leaders to "resist the pressure of Russia." Support for such a confrontation could be obtained at the level of the UN General Assembly, Schaeffer said.
In her opinion, the United States must show that Russia is to blame for the conflict. Also, the White House is obliged to resist "any so-called conflict resolution," which leads to "the deployment of additional Russian troops in the region."
The West needs a strategy to prevent Moscow from seizing the next border region, according to Scheffer. Nagorno-Karabakh is the next, albeit remote, front on which Russia will focus "efforts to restore the lost empire."
If the South Caucasus is “surrendered” by Washington and loses its independence, it will be a “fatal blow” that Russia will inflict on America’s ability to support alliances in the former Soviet Union and beyond, sheffer sums up.
Maxim Makarychev ("Russian newspaper") gives an analysis of the situation from the opposite point of view.
The analyst points out that the aggravation of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh in the summer of 2014 coincides with the culmination of the punitive operation in south-eastern Ukraine. In his opinion, the two scenarios are similar, and their “director” is registered in one theater - “on the other side of the Atlantic”.
According to Makarychev, the trilateral meeting in Sochi, about which the foreign political scientist wrote, "once again confirmed the high level of trusting relations between Vladimir Putin and his Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues." The meeting showed that there are real ways to resolve the conflict. Well, the result of the Sochi meeting: through the mediation of the Russian president, the armed clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh were stopped.
However, even against such a “positive background,” the journalist points out, influential forces in the West, including the United States, are interested in provoking two “hot neighbors” to the conflict. At its last summit in Wales, the North Atlantic alliance made it clear that it would “defend the rights of the former Soviet republics.” And this Caucasian conflict, Makarichev considers, can become “more bloody than Ukrainian”.
With regard to the international "peacekeeping" role of the United States, the reporter recalls that on September 10 B.H. Obama, turning to the Americans, called the American leadership "the only constant in an unstable world."
The aspirations of the “hawks” who came to the White House with Obama “are dictated by a stable dominant to weaken the foreign policy of the Russian Federation,” writes the journalist. In addition, Washington has its own economic interests in the South Caucasus. The prize for the winner in the Caucasus issue will be access to regional energy resources.
The repetition of Kiev "Maidan" in the Caucasus could turn into a disaster, the analyst summarizes.
Washington’s interests in the South Caucasus, therefore, pursue two clear goals: economic and political. If the political goal is to weaken Russia in terms of its influence in the post-Soviet space, then the economic goal was voiced by one of the best subordinates of Obama - Hillary Clinton.
Being at the position of state secretary, she made energy promises to the American audience more than once. This is not surprising: energy is the key to power and at the same time fueling the petrodollar.
Two and a half years ago, in the spring of 2012, Hillary Clinton opened her heart to students at the University of Syracuse (New York). She is put it very clearly: “Diplomacy in the energy sector is a critical factor in our national security, not only in terms of meeting the energy needs of the United States at an affordable price, but also in terms of the role that energy plays in our relations with other regions of the world.”
And if you remember what advice Brenda Schaeffer gave the White House, then it becomes clear that in conflicts related directly or indirectly to access to energy resources and the US energy policy in general, Russia and Putin personally should be blamed as soon as possible. In the Donbas war? Blame Putin. Conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh? He gave Putin. Crimea? Two opinions can not be. A little more, and it will become clear that Putin organized the "Islamic State" and in parallel amuses himself with piracy off the coast of Somalia.
In short, the terms of Putin! No wonder the Western press already hints that the Russian president has unsealed a nuclear briefcase and is preparing to blow up nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. Why all this is necessary to Putin, no one specifies. He's probably just bad. And the owner of the White House is a good one.
- especially for topwar.ru
Information