Alexander Dugin: "Russia must improve relations with Azerbaijan, because Aliyev acted correctly and competently during the conflict in South Ossetia"

The Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia will meet in Moscow in the nearest future and this will be followed by their meeting with the OSCE Minsk Group on the Karabakh conflict resolution. After it the Presidents of the three countries will meet on November 2. The Karabakh problem has been deadlocked since 1994 when the agreement on reconciliation came to power, while the conflict has been lasting for already 20 years. In the light of events in the Caucasus, it is possible to say that Russia's interests are more directed on Azerbaijan, while earlier Russia has been inclined towards Armenia.

Alexander Dugin, famous political scientist, head of the Center of geopolitical expertise and leader of the international Eurasian movement, spoke of what Medvedev can offer on Nagorno Karabakh and the nature of the upcoming meetings in his interview to Nakanune.RU.

- The trilateral meeting of the Presidents will be held on November 2 for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. Which steps are expected to be done during it and from which country are they expected?

- It is now necessary to raise an issue of the exclusion of the US side from the format of the Minsk Group on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict as the United States take a nonconstructive position on the post-Soviet area and just worsen the problems.

Now a new model of relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan is being formed. They seem to be more perspective than ever. Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement can not satisfy only the Azerbaijani side, for Russia had strategically supported Armenia before a definite moment. Armenians concluded a strategic partnership with us while Azerbaijan was inclined towards GUAM. After the crisis in Georgia the situation has changed significantly. Aliyev took a constructive position regarding Russia and did not support Georgia, which puts a positive shade on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

Now everyone has his own position, Russia supported the quo status, spoke of the peaceful resolution and legally substantiated settlement of the problem, though accents were laid on Armenia.

- Is the issue of the Karabakh recognition urgent for Moscow?

- No, it is not. it is more important to establish strategic partnership with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Speaking in the sense of definite geopolitical interests, Russia needs at least the strategic neutrality of Turkey and alliance with Azerbaijan more than anything else in the regional scale in order to resist the Atlantic strategy. We have taken everything possible from the strategic alliance with Armenia and it can not give more to Russia, while most depends now on Turkey and Azerbaijan. Thus recognition of Karabakh is a maximally unfavorable situation, though, certainly, Russia is interested in the quo status and preservation of our bases in this territory. At the same time, we should take into account that Russia, as far as I know, has another project of deployment of Russian forces to Karabakh, withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from there and initiation of a new stage of settlement. During these projects the most important chain is a growing confrontation with the United States and NATO bloc and Russia's intention to settle regional problems without participation of the Americans, as they only create conditions for new interethnic clashes that we have witnessed from the example of the South Ossetia.

- In this case, can Armenia become a "token coin" in this issue, as some experts say, for in fact the strategic interests of Russia are more connected with Azerbaijan?

- I think Armenia will not become a token coin in the Russian game as we have much in common with Armenians. Armenia is the CSTO member, we have a large Armenian diaspora and we have friendly and partner relations with this country. No exchange is spoken of here. On the other hand, Russia starts to think more not over the abstract principles in the international policy but of its own strategic interests. In this sense most depends on Azerbaijan. The symbolic gesture towards Turkey, which is in fact not interested in the resolution of the Karabakh problem, is more important.

There is a myth that Azerbaijan and Turkey are the same, but these are completely different countries, despite the historical closeness of these peoples and it should be taken into account. Turks do not care about the Azerbaijani conflict. Once active in the Caucasus policy, they need to preserve their statehood, which is on the verge of collapse due to the US intervention with Iraq. Turkey obviously does not have time for Karabakh. But in the symbolical sense, Karabakh is an issue, which has a definite nominal weight in Turkey. Therefore, today Russia needs to improve relations with Azerbaijan, especially because Aliyev acted correctly and competently during the South Ossetian conflict. Many interesting geopolitical perspectives are opening for Russia.

- You have already spoken of the Russian project on the problem settlement. What can Medvedev offer to the parties?

- Yes, there is a plan, I have been speaking of and it envisions the deployment of the Russian peacekeepers and the initiation of the process of the return of civilians to Karabakh after the ethnic cleaning,

On the other hand, the self-legitimacy of borders can be challenged, as within the framework of a single state of the USSR, borders were not of state importance, they played a role of division into regions, like division of Moscow into districts. But it was difficult to imagine Southern or Central districts to declare its independence. It is important to realize that the borders that we are speaking of are certain conditions, which were recognized as dogmas of international law without any historical ground and without consideration of ethnic factors. Naturally, this caused numerous differences, including the Karabakh conflict. I am confident that any annexation of this territory to Azerbaijan is unreal. Yes, it was administratively under Azerbaijan's  control, but Armenians lived there since ancient.

Armenians have definite negotiation positions in the resolution of this status, but the most important thing will be to expel the United States from this negotiation process as an absolutely destructive, backward and immoral power, which worsens the situation, wherever it comes and creates conditions for new conflicts.

We can not take any side, there are no "good or bad guys, these are Americans that turn these or those countries into such "guys". As we will remove them from this process, the situation will change, while the European Union is a way reasonable. Europeans should be allowed to this process. Medvedev has a plan and definite ideas, but the most important idea is to weaken US influence in this area.

- Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan offered to recognize the right of the Karabakh people for self-determination. What can you say about it?

- Now Karabakh is inhabited only by Armenians, while Azerbaijanis also lived there for long. The territory is mixed. We can not say that the conflict was initiated by any of the parties, there are no right or wrong sides in the ethnic conflicts. In fact, Azerbaijanis were deported from there, they feel bad, it can be said that, perhaps, this is their fault, but it is really unfair. Therefore, the problem settlement can be arranged in a form of any substantiated compromise. But, in other words, "people of Karabakh" now live both in Karabakh and out of its bounds. Tens and hundreds thousands of refugees from Karabakh are also the people of Karabakh. Therefore, the recognition of Karabakh can hardly be expected. As for the expression of will by the Karabakh people, I think most people know that international policy has such a concept as "double standard". It can not be used independently. We also have our preferences. If something meets our interests and values, we will adopt a definite decision.

In such cases all depends on the factor of power, on the political system, functioning in the potentially separatist regions, adjustment of their model with the federal center, whether they have external supporters and many other things. It means that the very factor of will expression by people works in some cases and does not work in others.

- Do you think the conflict in South Ossetia had an impact on the Karabakh problem?

- It did not have a direct influence, merely everything has become clear now. The United States recognized Kosovo but do not recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as it is not profitable for them. Russia was hesitating for long to occupy this asymmetric position, but it could be taken without thousands of civilians of Tskhinkhali who fell victims. It is only left to learn who would profit from the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh.

It can be said that today the Katabakh issue is strategically neutral for us. Some time ago the advantage was on the Armenian side, while Azerbaijan was inclined towards GUAM, rusophobian frond with Yushchenko and Saakashvili, while after August the situation has changed dramatically and the advantage directed to Baku. Certain small progress is recorded and the problem understanding has expanded. Meanwhile, Armenian sides starts to "flirt" more with the United States, in some cases strict Atlantic positions are recorded under Sargsyan, which was not observed during Kocharyan's term. The United States work and try to "take" Armenia away from Russia. Though strange it is profitable for us as thus they create conditions for us to significantly improve relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

/Day.Az/