The Karabakh Conflict in the Context of Political Processes in Armenia and Azerbaijan - 2018: Page 9 of 11

Sargsyan’s resignation, but such information was not surprising. Whereas Azerbaijan has a different position and therefore a different policy. The Diaspora is just emerging. Well, many issues blur here, too. The Azerbaijanis in Russia are mainly law-abiding, but they play no special role in the fate of Russia, and much less in that of their homeland. Yes, there are some rich Azerbaijanis in Russia, there are also sort of political structures, but all this reminds more of phantoms than reality. The current power has very poor position in the Western Diaspora; nowadays the main fighters against the regime are in the Western Diaspora. After all, the authorities shut down and seized control of the media and TV, the opposition in the country has severely weakened. And now, independent media and TV are in Europe, being the site of opposition actions. Therefore, those lobbying the interests of the authorities on many issues are not the representatives of the Azerbaijani Diaspora, but the foreigners. First and foremost, Israel plays the role of lobbyist of the regime, and European and American politicians are simply corrupt. This approach, however, has already led to a huge scandal (“Caviar diplomacy”, “laundromat”, corruption scandals in PACE). Summing up, the Azerbaijani authorities do not count on their Diaspora, they rely on foreigners on many issues.

On the impact of the Russia-West confrontation on the Karabakh conflict

Manvel Sarkisyan -  The confrontation between Russia and the West (or rather, the US), in my opinion, doesn’t affect the position of the co-chairs regarding Karabakh. The co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group has long been transformed into a strong geostrategic regulatory mechanism in our region. The objectives of this regulation are more relevant to Turkey, Russia and Iran than to the conflicting sides over Karabakh. Armenia and Azerbaijan, most likely, are inscribed into this situation as factors of the regional balance of power. We have never seen the United States and the whole West (represented by NATO) reproach Armenia for having a Russian military base on its territory. There are no special claims from Russia regarding the Western projects of Armenia (co-operation with the EU, NATO). All this makes sense, if you agree with my statements regarding the international roles of our countries and the conflict situation in Karabakh. The complete detachment of Russia from Artsakh, and vice versa, the active interference of the EU in the affairs of Artsakh also speaks volumes. It is not coincidental that the West more frequently calls for recognizing the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and even acts of recognition of states and cities tend to increase. It cannot be denied that the West is looking for some non-standard mechanisms for the formation of a security system in our region.

The status quo is not only a territorial aspect. Recognition of the independence of the NKR is also a method of eliminating the status quo. It is difficult for Azerbaijan to influence such a tendency if it deepens in the policy of the West. Russia, in a way, benefits from this tendency, as Azerbaijan will increasingly seek support