Question of the day: who benefits from a new war in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Let's make a reservation right away: there were no right or wrong in territorial conflicts, there is not and cannot be, since any lands throughout world history have been conquered dozens of times by different peoples. That is why all conflicts of this kind must be extinguished by the world community at the root. However, they are not extinguished, which once again confirms the obvious idea: by and large there is no world community, but there is an old and bad "right of the strong". In the case of the next war in Nagorno-Karabakh, which both Armenians and Azerbaijanis consider theirs, its outcome will depend not on them, but on their powerful neighbors - Turkey and Russia, on what position they will take.

Therefore, the appeal of the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan to the nation with an appeal to give a worthy response to the aggression of Azerbaijan, as well as declarations that "the hostilities are being conducted successfully, and the enemy bears losses..." in fact play no role. Pashinyan's other words play a role here, that “the international community should not allow Turkey to intervene in the conflict...” Alas, the international community here should be understood as Russia and only Russia, because all other countries, even those that are super loyal to Armenia, like France or the United States, in which a large Armenian diaspora lives, they will not provide any support except moral support to this country.

And the victorious reports of the Azerbaijani military about "liberation from the Armenian yoke" of another village in Nagorno-Karabakh will soon come to naught, as soon as Turkey for some reason stops helping this country.

So who, at the moment, is more profitable to warm up an already heated conflict? Experts answer this question in different ways.

Political scientist Konstantin Kalachev, for example, is sure that Russia is in a very difficult situation: “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed his full support to Azerbaijan in connection with the aggravation of the conflict with Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh. He stated this in a conversation with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. The Turkish leader confirmed that he would provide any assistance to Azerbaijan and called Armenia the main threat to stability and peace in the region.

Meanwhile, Runet turns into a battlefield for pro-Armenian and pro-Azerbaijani users. I wrote about this in a comment to the post of a respected person. I will reproduce it here. The case when calls for dialogue and equidistance will be criticized by both. For Russia, the moment is extremely important - either a decrease in prestige and a weakening of positions in the Caucasus, or strengthening and strengthening.

In my opinion, everything will depend on how successful the offensive actions of the Azerbaijani military are. If this time they really manage to occupy and hold several villages, and maybe even an entire region or two, the nature of Russian peacekeeping and attitudes towards it will change. Until now, the Armenians were more efficient. If this time the Azerbaijanis succeed in the blitzkrieg, the negotiating positions will be revised. Then the shares of Turkey go up, the shares of Russia go down. If the Armenians hold their positions and push the Azerbaijanis back, the mediating and reconciling role of the Russian Federation will be fully preserved, even increased.

Someone will say that Russian culture is better preserved in Baku than in Yerevan. That relations with Azerbaijan as a country with a similar political system are more expensive than relations with Armenia, which will still look to the West. I will say that this is a simplification. Balancing Turkey's influence in Azerbaijan is a good thing, but hardly feasible".

***

Political scientist Ilya Grashchenkov is sure that the next clash between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh is directly related to what is happening in Syria and Libya. And that's why:

“Turkey's dissatisfaction with the results of the ceasefire in Idlib (recall that in February this year, the pro-Turkish formations lost almost half of the territory they controlled) increased the level of tension in Russian-Turkish relations.

However, then Ankara turned its attention to Libya, where it managed to achieve some success. In particular, thanks to Turkish proxies, the LNA army under the command of Khalifa Haftar suffered a serious defeat and was driven back from the suburbs of Tripoli.

But that was the end of it. Haftar's sponsors, which include France and the largest Arab power, Egypt, have stabilized the situation. Heavy battles for Sirte showed that the limits of Turkish capabilities in Libya have been reached and it will not be possible to extend the power of the pro-Turkish head of the PNC Faiz Saraj to the entire territory of the country.

For Turkey, this means a serious blow to the plans to develop the energy resources of the Mediterranean Sea within the framework of the Erdogan-Saraj deal. In both Syria and Libya, Turkish politics has reached a dead end.

At the same time, the Turkish leadership has accumulated a certain number of claims against Moscow.

First, for Idlib. It was Russian intervention that prevented the Turkish army from crushing Assad's grouping in this province and recapturing the territories captured by the Syrian army from the pro-Turkish groups.

Secondly, although Russia moved away from direct support of Khalif Haftar in Libya and intensified dialogue with Faiz Saraj, it (according to Ankara) did not provide Turkey with the diplomatic support it deserves. And it, apparently, was envisaged within the framework of the package agreements for the settlement in Idlib.

As a result, Turkey decided to put pressure on Russia. However, not with the aim of unleashing a confrontation with it (this is extremely unprofitable for Ankara, which receives serious benefits from the partnership between the two countries), but to raise rates in the bargaining around Syria and Libya.

The frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh was chosen for the drawing, and Turkey's close relations with Azerbaijan were used as a tool..."

***

But human rights activist Vladimir Osechkin saw the “hand of Moscow” in what was happening: “A reliable source from Moscow said that Putin made it clear to Erdogan that Moscow and the Russian army would not intervene in the conflict and support the conditionally pro-Western Pashinyan. In fact, they gave the go-ahead. Further, Turkey transferred mercenaries from Syria to Azerbaijan and off we go. As a result, a de facto war began on 09/27/2020, people are dying, tomorrow the world media will come out with photos of burning tanks on the front pages of newspapers and half the world will ask a strong player in the region - Putin - to restore order and calm Armenia and Azerbaijan. And they will forget the story about Novichok, Sharite and Navalny, and the blocking of Nord Stream 2. If only there was no war. Crimea - Donbass, Syria, now Karabakh... This source is rarely mistaken..."