Answers to media questions on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

November 17, 2020

20:30

Moscow region, Novo-Ogaryovo

Answers to media questions on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

Question : Vladimir Vladimirovich, a week has passed since the signing of the most important statement between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia. How do you currently assess the progress of its implementation? What’s successful? What could be the problem? But the most important thing is, in your opinion, will this agreement make it possible to cut that very tight knot, such an old and very difficult question, when, as you yourself said, each side has its own truth?

Vladimir Putin: The most important thing that we have managed to do is to stop the bloodshed. As I have already said, more than four thousand people died, according to official figures. In fact, I think more. Tens of thousands are injured, maimed. Look, this is not a movie. This is a tragedy that happens in life with specific people, with specific families. Therefore, the cessation of bloodshed is the main result.

But in order to understand what is happening, we still have to go back to history, literally in a nutshell. I am forced to remind you that all this began back in 1988, when ethnic clashes broke out in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. Then the civilian population, Armenian, suffered, then these events spread to Nagorno-Karabakh.

And since the then leadership of the Soviet Union did not react properly to the events taking place … I repeat once again: these are subtle things, here I do not want to take sides, who is right there, who is to blame, now it is impossible to say at all, but it was necessary to put things in order, it was necessary to protect the people, the civilian population. This was not done. And then the Armenians themselves took up arms, and this protracted, in fact, long-term conflict began, which led to the fact that in 1991 Karabakh declared its independence, sovereignty, independence, and in 1994 the Bishkek agreements, the Bishkek memorandum were signed , which ceased hostilities at that point in time. What was the result? As a result, Karabakh declared its independence, as I said, and seven more adjacent regions came under the control of the Armenians, in fact,under the control of Armenia.

Here, in fact, this is what we got from the past, and what had to be solved.

In my opinion, the fact that hostilities have stopped and, which is very important, have agreed to unblock all transport communications and restore economic ties, in my opinion, this is extremely important and this creates a good basis for normalizing relations in the long term.

Remark : Returning to history: no one recognized the status of Karabakh then.

Vladimir Putin : This is true: no one recognized it then or later. By the way, Armenia itself did not recognize it.

Question : Does the problem of Karabakh’s status exist now?

Vladimir Putin : Yes, there is such a problem, the final status of Karabakh has not been settled. We agreed that we will maintain the status quo, the current situation. What will happen next is to be decided in the future or by future leaders, future participants in this process. But, in my opinion, if conditions are created for a normal life, for the restoration of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, between people at the everyday level, especially in the conflict zone, this will create conditions for determining the status of Karabakh.

As for the recognition-non-recognition of Karabakh as an independent, independent state, this can be assessed in different ways, but this, without a doubt, was a significant factor, including in the course of the bloody conflict that has just ended, I hope. Because the very fact of non-recognition of Karabakh, including by Armenia, significantly left an imprint on the course of events and on its perception.

Here we have to say frankly: in due time, after the criminal, without any doubt, actions of the former Georgian leadership, I mean the attacks on our peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We recognized the expression of the will of the people living in Crimea as just, and the desire of the people living there to reunite with Russia, we went to meet the people, we did it openly. Someone may like it, some may not like it, but we did it in the interests of the people who live there, and in the interests of the whole of Russia, and we are not ashamed to speak about it directly. This was not done with regard to Karabakh, and this, of course, significantly influenced all the events taking place there.

Question: The Armenians who left Karabakh during the clashes are now returning to their homes. How safe do you think it is?

Vladimir Putin: This is a very important issue, this is a very sensitive issue. It is with the aim of ensuring the safety of these people that the Russian peacekeeping contingent is deployed. As you can see, this document is signed by both the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan, and my signature is. We all perfectly understand, we are aware of the fact that, based on the severity of this conflict, based on the fact that the wounds have not yet healed, they are very fresh, there are a lot of losses, as I said, trouble has come to many homes, to many families, and, by the way, both in Azerbaijan and in Armenia. Therefore, it takes time for everything to calm down, to settle down and for people to really feel that a peaceful life has returned to their hearts, to their souls, this is what is most important. Well, before that, of course, you should think about the real safety of people, including refugees,returning, by the way, from both sides. And this mission is entrusted to the Russian peacekeepers.

Question: That night, immediately after the signing of this agreement, we witnessed how messages from Yerevan began literally within an hour that the situation was seething there. And we see that it is seething now. The opposition accuses Prime Minister Pashinyan of almost treason, of betrayal of the Motherland. In turn, Pashinyan just the day before said the following: the Armenian side could have avoided war if it agreed to transfer seven regions to Azerbaijan, as well as the city of Shusha, but we did not want to agree to this, accepted the challenge and fought to the end. Was the question really raised this way during the negotiations?

Vladimir Putin: The question of returning to Azerbaijan five and then two regions that were under control (in fact, under the control of Armenia, I must say this directly) has been raised for a long time. In 2013, within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia formulated conditions that, in our opinion, could initiate the peace process. And with this, by the way, all the participants in this Minsk process, the OSCE Minsk Group, including the co-chairs (and this, let me remind you, Russia, France and the United States of America), all agreed and supported this.

What was the basis of these proposals? At the first stage, the return of five regions controlled by Armenia, and then two additional regions, the creation of a corridor that would connect Karabakh and Armenia in the zone of the Lachin region of Azerbaijan (therefore it was conventionally called the Lachin corridor) and the recognition of the status quo of Karabakh itself, without fixing it final status.

Indeed, I have been saying this to our Armenian friends and Azerbaijani friends too, in my opinion, this would be a solution to the issue. But, unfortunately, we approached the final decision on this basis several times … Yes, by the way, there was still a prerequisite — the return of refugees, from both sides, both Azerbaijani refugees and Armenian refugees, to their homes. And this is an unconditional requirement of international humanitarian law. In my opinion, if we managed to do this, we would be able to reach agreements on this base, and there would be no war, this is true. I am absolutely convinced of this even now.

Unfortunately, when we approached, it seemed that we were already quite close to resolving the issue on this basis, on one side or on the other, obstacles arose that we could not overcome. Ultimately, the case turned into such a bloody, frankly, armed conflict, of which we have all just witnessed.

As for the city of Shusha, the question of the transfer of Shushi has never been raised. I repeat, the final status of Karabakh was transferred for the future, and everyone had to agree that the status quo as an unrecognized state was preserved.

As for the city of Shusha, this issue arose during this conflict, during this crisis. Indeed, it was, but in what context? On October 19–20, I had a series of telephone conversations with both President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan. And then the armed forces of Azerbaijan regained control over an insignificant part, the southern part of Karabakh.

In general, I managed to convince President Aliyev that it is possible to stop the hostilities, but a mandatory condition on his part was the return of refugees, including to the city of Shusha.

Unexpectedly for me, the position of our Armenian partners was formulated in such a way that it is unacceptable for them. And Prime Minister Pashinyan told me directly that he sees this as a threat to the interests of Armenia and Karabakh. Now it is not very clear to me what this threat would be, I mean that the return of civilians was supposed while maintaining control from the Armenian side over this part of the territory of Karabakh, including Shusha, and bearing in mind the presence of our peacekeepers, which we were talking about already then we agreed with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. And the Prime Minister then said to me: “No, we cannot go for it. We will fight. We will fight. “ Therefore, the accusations against him about some kind of betrayal have no basis whatsoever. Another thing is whether it was right or wrong, this is another question, but here there can be no question of any betrayal.

Question: You have already mentioned the OSCE Minsk Group. And on the eve of France and the United States as co-chairs of this group called on Russia to clarify the role of Turkey in the Karabakh settlement. In general, many questions arise about the center with Turkey to control the ceasefire. President Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister announced that the Turks would take part in the peacekeeping mission on a joint basis with Russia. Is it really so? And what will this center do? And the most interesting, where will he eventually be deployed?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding Turkey, the role of Turkey, this is well known, it has been said about it repeatedly in Azerbaijan, and the Turkish side has never hidden it, they unilaterally supported Azerbaijan.

But what can I tell you? These are the geopolitical consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. We talk about it all the time in a general way. It is not here in general, but here are very specific events that we are now observing, which we are witnessing. What I mean? Azerbaijan is an independent sovereign state. Azerbaijan has the right to choose its allies as it sees fit. Who can deny him this? This is the first thing.

And the second thing. I have already said that no one, not even Armenia, recognized the independence of Karabakh. What does this mean in terms of international law? That Azerbaijan returned the territories that it considered (Azerbaijan), but the entire world community also considered Azerbaijani territory. And in this regard, he had the right to choose any ally who renders him some assistance in this.

Incidentally, Turkey was originally a member of the OSCE Minsk Group on the Karabakh settlement. So it was inside an international institution, an international settlement mechanism. She was not as co-chair. We had three co-chairs: France, Russia and the United States. Turkey was not among the co-chairs, nevertheless it was part of this group, there are 11 states in total.

You can give any assessment to Turkey’s actions, but it is difficult to accuse Turkey of violating international law. There can be any taste assessments, but nevertheless the matter is exactly as I just said about it.

As for the peacekeeping mission, yes, indeed, both Azerbaijan and Turkey have always talked about the possibility of Turkey’s participation in peacekeeping operations. I still seem to have managed to convince both our Turkish partners and our colleagues in Azerbaijan that it is not necessary to create conditions or preconditions for the destruction of our agreements, such conditions that would provoke one of the contracting parties to take some extreme measures and extreme actions.

What I mean? I am referring to the very difficult legacy of the past and the one associated with the tragic, bloody events of the First World War, with genocide. This is a factor that can be recognized, you can not recognize, someone recognizes, but someone in the world does not.

There are no problems for Russia here, we have long recognized this. But why provoke the Armenian side by the presence of Turkish soldiers on the line of contact? It seems to me that President Erdogan understood and understood this very well.

We didn’t have any problems here. We agreed that Turkey, at the request of Azerbaijan, will take part in monitoring the observance of the ceasefire. We will do this together with Turkey, I mean that we have very good experience of interaction in the Middle East, including in Syria, where we are in the Idlib zone and on the border between Syria and Turkey, together we organize joint patrols, a convoy.

This kind of interaction is not required here, but we agreed that we will create a joint center that will use unmanned aerial vehicles, together we will monitor the situation along the contact line with the help of these aircraft, together we will receive information and analyze it together and, accordingly , draw conclusions from what is happening in reality, in online life, in the current time mode.

Where it will be located is another matter. It is obvious that it will be located on the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan has the right to make a decision on its own, where it deems appropriate to place it.

Question: Regarding taste assessments. Still, a lot, of course, is being said and discussed about Turkey’s role in this region. How do you generally assess its role in everything that has happened in recent months?

Vladimir Putin: I think that it is not my responsibility to assess the role of Turkey. Different people, different countries evaluate differently. At this point in time, different states have different relations with Turkey. We know the background, and sometimes the dramatic background, of relations between Turkey and Russia over the centuries.

But I want to know what to pay attention to? That, say, many European nations had a no less difficult and tragic history in relations with each other. For example, the same France and Germany. How many times have they fought among themselves? Now they, within the framework of NATO, together carry out their functions on defense and security, as they see fit to do so, cooperate within the framework of the European Economic Community. They overcame all this, stepped over and move on in the interests of the future of their peoples. Why can’t we do the same here in the Black Sea region?

Yes, our positions and points of view do not always and not in everything coincide, they sometimes differ diametrically. But that is the art of diplomacy — finding a compromise. A compromise is based on respect for the partner.

Question: On the part of France and the United States, there is almost resentment that they were not invited to participate in this agreement. In general, does this format — the OSCE Minsk Group — have a future?

Vladimir Putin: Well, I don’t know about grievances. When issues are resolved, discussed at this level and in such a context, when it comes to health and life, the fate of millions of people for a long historical perspective, there is no time for resentment, not for pouting. Here, completely different categories are taken into account. And I think that in fact this is a hyperbole, such an artistic exaggeration that someone is offended by someone.

As for the role of France and the United States, I highly appreciate them, the role of both France and the United States, because they have always been in the material, they have always looked for ways to solve this problem. As I have already said, starting in 2013, when Russia proposed the basis for the format of a future settlement, both France and the United States generally supported our proposal and worked together in solidarity.

The question is how and whether it was possible to take into account in detail the opinion of each of our partners in the preparation of the final document, which formed the basis of our trilateral statement, the basis of the ceasefire, but this is a purely technical issue, because this does not undermine the basis of our common position according to the principles of settlement. The statement we made is entirely based on a trilateral position.

As for the signing itself, the signatories, please note, I have already said that on the 19th and 20th I had a series of telephone conversations with both President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan, and in general, as it seemed to me, we had almost reached agreements on the cessation of hostilities. But it didn’t work out, it didn’t grow together, unfortunately. And the situation began to develop in such a way that, in general, something happened that could have been foreseen, namely, the armed forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan took control of Shusha. And, as absolutely justly and honestly, addressing his people, Prime Minister Pashinyan said, I think, yesterday. He said that the situation is critical for the Armenian side. The bill went into hours. And it was possible to take both Stepanakert and further movement. Therefore, in these conditions, to put it bluntly,it was in the interests of the Armenian side to immediately stop the hostilities. Where can we hold additional consultations in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group? It’s just unrealistic. We must proceed from the realities that have developed on the battlefield at a given time. We did so in the interests of both the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples.

Question: You said this, and it is widely known that no one hid the fact that Azerbaijan was supported by Turkey. There was a lot of information about the transfer of militants from the Middle East to the conflict zone. Did they support Armenia, did they feel help? As you know, Armenia is a member of the CSTO.

Vladimir Putin: I want to bring you back to the part I spoke about at the beginning. Armenia did not recognize the independence and sovereignty of Nagorno-Karabakh. This meant from the point of view of international law, and Nagorno-Karabakh, and all adjacent areas were, are an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The CSTO (Collective Security) Treaty provides for mutual assistance in the event of aggression against the territory of a country that is a party to this treaty. Nobody encroached on the territory of the Armenian Republic. And this did not give us any right to take a direct part in these hostilities.

As for whether Armenia felt alone, I assure you that the Russian Federation, within the framework of both multilateral and bilateral obligations, including in the field of military-technical cooperation, fully fulfilled all its obligations, for which the leadership of Armenia, in including in the person of Prime Minister Pashinyan, repeatedly expressed words of gratitude and emphasized that Russia, in full compliance with its obligations, fulfills all obligations (I apologize for the tautology) in this area.

By the way, we proceeded also from the fact (you just mentioned the role of Turkey, about informal armed formations), we proceeded from the assumption that even in the course of such serious events the balance of forces must be observed. And I assure you that Armenia did not feel abandoned, forgotten. And Russia did everything to prevent this from happening. But this is how the situation developed on the battlefield, exactly the way it developed, as Prime Minister Pashinyan said frankly and honestly in his address to the nation, in his statement yesterday.

Question: Returning to the internal political situation in Armenia, the situation is developing there very sharply, the President of Armenia is already demanding to call parliamentary elections and transfer power to the government of national accord. Well, the situation really rages. Isn’t there a danger that as a result people will come to power in Armenia who simply refuse to carry out everything that is signed?

Vladimir Putin: That would be suicide.

I repeat once again, Prime Minister Pashinyan — of course, it is hard for him, but he said, outlined the true picture, the true state of affairs, as it is, as it was at the time of signing our trilateral statement, and as it is today. I have nothing to add. He told the whole truth, truthfully, absolutely honestly, here, I repeat, there is nothing to add. Therefore, it is, of course, the business of each side, whether or not to comply with the agreements reached, but, I repeat once again, that would be a huge mistake. Hope this doesn’t happen. This is the first thing.

Second. As for the internal political situation, this is not our business, this is the business of Armenia. Armenia is an independent, sovereign state. This state has the right to decide its internal affairs as it sees fit. But if you want my assessment, then a country that is at war or is in danger of renewed hostilities, as it has always been during previous years, still cannot afford to behave in such a way, including in the sphere of organizing power, in order to split society from the inside. It seems to me that this is absolutely unacceptable, counterproductive, and extremely dangerous. In my opinion, we are just witnesses, at least in part, but witnesses of what has happened recently.

Question: After the agreement, Russian peacekeepers were quickly deployed to the conflict zone. Is the number there, is it enough to complete the assigned tasks? And an important question: will our servicemen receive the so-called combatants for such service?

Vladimir Putin: We have a regulatory framework. This is regulated in the corresponding decrees of the President, which were adopted earlier. The servicemen who perform peacekeeping functions, carry out this mission, receive additional payments, but not combat ones, namely for the performance of their peacekeeping functions abroad.

As for whether there is enough or not enough, this question should be decided from the real requirements of life, which, of course, arise every day. In principle, we proceed from the assumption that this is sufficient. But if something can and should be changed, then this can be done only by agreement of the parties.

Question: You have already said several times that during this whole conflict you have repeatedly talked both with the Prime Minister of Armenia and with the President of Azerbaijan, and earlier you also spoke about this. If we go back that night, at what point did, when and how did the document become the way we all saw it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it was a difficult, I would say, energy-consuming process, I think from all sides. And this happened as a result of trilateral consultations. In fact, I had to take on the role of a mediator, when I talked with one and the second leader, listened to their demands, complaints about the text, made some changes, contacted the other party, listened to their wishes and requirements, then consulted with the first regarding the acceptability of these provisions for other partners. But in fact it was an equal, equal, three-sided work.

Question: Did it all happen on this very day or were there any plans earlier?

Vladimir Putin: It was on this day.

Yes, I am returning to what was said by Prime Minister Pashinyan. There was just such a situation in the combat zone, when, frankly speaking, Armenia came to such a line when it was necessary to make a decision. But we must pay tribute, and in these conditions, of course, there was still a struggle on both sides for every phrase, for every point, one might say, for every comma.

Question: That night we were all witnesses, you had a teleconference with Aliyev. Pashinyan was not in this teleconference. Why?

Vladimir Putin: You should ask him that. He simply did not consider it possible, necessary. It was not the picture that was important, but the essence of our agreements.

Question: Even now, one can often hear a reproach from Armenia and from Russian Armenians that the rather peculiar, to put it mildly, position of the Armenian leadership towards Russia, in general, has led to how it all ended. How do you assess such assessments?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t understand what I mean. I do not note any peculiarities in our relations with Armenia lately, including during the time when Prime Minister Pashinyan was in power. Yes, I have already said in relation to the present day, but I also considered and consider the situation of several years before that and I believe that a country that is in a rather difficult situation, on the verge of hostilities, cannot afford to organize internal political life and power with the help of streets. This does not lead to good. A split in society does not lead to anything good. It is necessary to consolidate society, not to destroy it.

But everyone knows my position, I speak about it openly, here I, without hesitation, now speak about it publicly. But this did not affect our relationship in any way. Yes, I had good relations with the previous management, I never hid it and never hid this relationship. But this did not affect our interstate relations in any way. Because, firstly, our personal relations have developed quite trusting and constructive. Therefore, these hints are not very clear to me. First.

And the second and very important. In addition to those who have a certain degree of trust in their own country, there are the people of that country. And if you are talking about the Armenian people, then Russia and the Armenians are connected by centuries-old relations, rooted far, far back in the past.

Our relations are based on cultural and religious closeness, and many things historically bind us. And this is even more important than the relationship between specific people. We remember this, we never forget, and this is the basis of our interaction with Armenia.