On the sidelines, however, a diplomatic charade is taking place. Despite its aggressive moves and stern threats, Ankara is trying to camouflage its intentions through diplomatic moves. First, Ibrahim Kalin, President Erdogan’s spokesman, indicated that Turkey is in Nakhichevan to support its ally Azerbaijan and assured the public that Ankara’s moves do not intend to harm its relations with Moscow.
In his turn, President Erdogan has taken the initiative to call President Vladimir Putin. During their conversation Putin “has stressed the importance of preventing any steps that could cause an escalation in tensions.”
Once again, the issue of the Russian military base in Gyumri has become a topic of public discussion. Many anti-Russian politicians underestimate the significance of that base. Analysts like Levon Shirinyan and Armenian Parliament members like Arman Babajanyan and pundits like Varoujan Avetissyan (Sasna Tserer) and Tigran Zmalyan (European Party) are adamantly against the base. They try to suggest that Russia has set that base on Armenian territory “to enslave us.”
However, they do not offer any alternative in case Armenia faces an existential threat.
Granted, the base may be self-serving for Russia to maintain its influence in the Caucasus region. In the meantime, it is a deterrent against any Turkish threat. To defend its military base Moscow has to defend Armenia’s territory.
In politics, there has to be a confluence of interests so that a major power is motivated to defend the weaker power. There is no free lunch.
In a recent interview, the director of a political and military analytical center in Russia, Alexander Khramchikhin, confirmed the fact that the Russian base in Armenia is intended to contain Turkey: “If a war breaks out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, I am not sure what position Russia may take,” the analyst stated. “But if the war takes place in Karabakh, I know for sure that Russia will not intervene. I repeat, the base is there to contain Turkey. The base is part of Russia’s geostrategic posture. Therefore, it is meant to stop Turkey, the foreign intruder in the region.”
Mr. Khramchikhin also believes that Turkey has introduced its forces into Azerbaijan to pressure Armenia psychologically. But he believes that Turkey at this time “cannot invade Armenia, because it will be stretching its resources too far, as it is mired in many other conflicts.”
We wished that it were true. Turkey’s involvement in many conflicts defines its behavior pattern. Either it foments a crisis to intervene, like it did in Syria, or it takes advantage of destabilized regions, like Iraq and Libya to expand its empire.
Following that logic, we cannot rule out the possibility that Ankara precipitated the recent crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan to begin implementing one of its long held dreams.
Strategically, Armenia is at the mercy of enemy forces; Turkish armed forces are in mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, which does not have a common border with the mainland, but has a narrow border with Turkey, acquired after a land swap with Iran in 1932.
Armenian forces are no match for Turkey. Armenia must avoid any direct confrontation with the Turkish army. But Yerevan has other sources that it can use in diplomatic forums.
Recently, Armenia’s representative Armen Babikyan raised the issue in Energy Intelligence, a publication of the International Atomic Agency, of Azerbaijan’s threat to bomb its nuclear power plant, Metsamor. On July 27, the issue was discussed at a Vienna conference, which characterized the threat as an act of state terrorism against Armenia.
Armenia has not weaponized its strongest argument, the fact of genocide. Only after some timid references by Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan did Armenia’s Ambassador to Latvia Tigran Mkrtchyan issue a strongly-worded statement that Armenians will not tolerate a second genocide.
Jews and Israel shout from the rooftops about the Holocaust they have suffered. We can emulate them and try to score some political points.
What makes everything even worse is that during this current situation, there is polarization in Armenia. Any responsible and rational leadership would seek internal stability, to withstand the threats.
The opposition and the government are equally responsible for the ongoing divide in Armenia: the first for its irresponsible and destabilizing rhetoric, and the latter for its witch hunt in rounding up perceived enemies.
Armenia needs calm, de-escalation and unity. That will not be offered by Russia nor any other outside force. It is in the hands of the leadership to steer the county toward calmer waters.