Hetq interviews political analyst Anush Sedrakyan

Mrs. Sedrakyan, Armenian diplomacy has been quite active of late and has quickly responded to the statements of the Turkish-Azerbaijani pact. Examples are the Azerbaijan threats to strike the Metsamor nuclear power plant and Turkey's unconditional support for Azerbaijan. To what do you attribute  this active-aggressive working style of the Armenia Ministry of Foreign Affairs? We have never seen anything like this before.

The first is the local specific factor. Armenia has gained more independence, democracy is more legitimate, and society is more demanding. But there is one worrying factor for me that I would like to emphasize. Relations between Russia and Turkey are tense again, we see that. I would not like to think that once again Armenia will work in the Russia-Turkey buffer puppet structure. We understand that Russia and Turkey are constantly straining and warming relations, and Armenia, of course, must be flexible here, but not unconditionally accept anyone's position. In terms of propaganda, the media constantly mentions that Azerbaijan and Turkey are the same, but we must understand that no matter what happens, they are not the same. We have a major challenge - Azerbaijan's proximity to Armenia, and a secondary challenge - the Turkish factor. And if  the Turkish factor suddenly becomes a priority for Russia, we should not follow the same path.

I think that our diplomacy is very proactive, but we can expand that process to have a good result in the media war, because our army is doing its job brilliantly. And now the winner of the media war can be said to have won more than half the war. It would be good for the Foreign Ministry not only to make statements, but also to systematize that media war.

Was the active foreign work of our diplomacy during the July escalation the reason why Aliyev publicly complained about his longtime Foreign Minister Mammadyarov and dismissed him? Was Mammadyarov really "passive" against the backdrop of our diplomats, or is there another reason?

Finding a scapegoat is a truly short and easy process, especially in dictatorial regimes. In my opinion, Mammadyarov became that scapegoat. It seems to me that the reason is that Aliyev has lost the support of the international community in all respects because of his internal dictatorship and his unbalanced external actions. Russia remains its hope and faith, but as we understand against the background of the recent escalation, Russia is not so inclined to defend the interests of Azerbaijan. But this is a political thing. The Armenians should never attribute it to "brilliant" Armenian-Russian diplomatic relations. Russia always pursues its own and very tough and egocentric policy. Well, maybe that's normal.

Aliyev, seeing that he could neither get external resources for the blitzkrieg, nor get internal resources from his own society, poured all his anger on Mammadyarov, citing a diplomatic defeat. But it was Eastern trickery. Advocating for the diplomatic defeat, Aliyev did not want to admit and did not want his public to know that he had suffered a military defeat. In other words, the weight of the military defeat shifted to the diplomatic arena, because here victory and defeat are more elusive and easier to digest.

What does Aliyev's statement ‘liberate our territories before it is too late’ refer to? Was it a kind of a desperate boast after suffering painful losses in the Tavush region?

It can be a desperate boast. There is an internal audience for which such announcements are made. It became clear that the Azerbaijani unbreakable spirit is nothing but hysterical screams and ridiculous actions. Aliyev's statement is an attempt to inspire a patriotic narrative for a despairing community. But we must never forget that we must live side by side with our neighbors, who can make any seemingly unbelievable, horrible and international violation statement come true at any moment.

Witness Turkey's steps in Cyprus and Azerbaijan's attacks in the direction of Tavush. These people recognize neither any international norm, nor a border, nor any humanitarian standards. We must always have this in our minds. We need to understand who we are dealing with. Therefore, when peace calls are made, it is desirable to moderate them, because those calls are expedient when you are dealing with a neighbor that at least abides by some standards. We understand that Azerbaijan is not like that, which is also obvious to the international community.

Taking into account the continuation of Azerbaijan's aggressive stance, Turkey's provocative behavior, the appointment of a new foreign minister in Azerbaijan and the coronavirus epidemic, can we expect even a slight change or something new in the negotiation process by the end of the year?

If there is a small shift, let it be a shift on the border, because the answer to all diplomatic and non-diplomatic provocations is the same - victorious operations on the battlefield, which our glorious army is successfully carrying out. We can only help. I am a supporter of the Israeli doctrine. All structures - diplomatic, civil, democratic - work for the security of the state. Unfortunately, our priority is also security.

Do you expect the resumption of large-scale military operations by the end of the year?

Yes, and for a simple reason. The coronavirus has a negative impact on society. The latter, struggling for his own existence, forgets about the rights of others, including the violation of borders. That is why we must be ready and place our hopes in ourselves.

Do you foresee the resumption of operations on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border or the Karabakh front?

I think they can happen in parallel. Our task is to be ready. But before that we must diplomatically inform the international community that we expect such provocations.