Does England engage in game in South Caucasus?

PanARMENIAN.Net - In this confrontation Armenia can acquire some political dividends, without openly taking anyone’s side. But UK’s engagement in the process was somewhat unexpected. The invitation extended to the Armenian President for delivering a speech at Chatham House is very serious, especially taking into account the fact that Serzh Sargsyan is to speak of the Armenian-Turkish relations there. Apparently, in 2010 Britain is really determined to intensify its policy in the region, and the Armenian-Turkish process is almost a unique opportunity. Britain supports Turkey’s integration into Europe and is well aware that Ankara’s path to Europe lies through Armenia. Thus, we have a very interesting configuration: USA and UK with EU against Russia. By the way, history is aware of such confrontation. It was during the Crimean War of 1854-1855, when Russia was defeated. And though the USA was not involved then, key players were almost the same. Also the Armenian issue was rather sharp then, ending with the Berlin Treaty of 1861, which led to pogroms and massacres in the Ottoman Empire.

It should be noted that for a long time Turkey had not experienced such pressure from the world powers. Statements about the importance of a “bridge between East and West” are gradually yielding to pragmatism: how important the role of Turkey is in this new, “post-American” world, as Fareed Zakaria calls it. The fine geo-strategic position, which Turkey has always used to its advantage winkling out the maximum benefit possible, could one day turn to be “inconvenient” for border states and interested countries. The thing is the excessive ambitions of the country, pressing towards the establishment of the Great Turan, which we have already explored in our earlier analyses.

In all of this “chess game” Azerbaijan is hardly noticeable. The position of Baku should be viewed in the light of American military intelligence, which has already warned Azerbaijan against the impendent war which, even if starts, will end in a defeat for Azerbaijan.

Russia, as always, is doing its best not to yield “a single inch” in the vitally important for her region, realizing perfectly well that return is impossible. Moscow now has to put forth every effort in the “catch-up” game with the U.S., trying to enlist the support of Yerevan and not that of Baku, which has nothing but oil and gas.

Reverting to the beginning, let us repeat that London’s claim for the role of another player in the region is rather serious. Britain has always been experienced in Eastern issues, especially if it comes to the British influence that somewhat declined after the World War II, or rather after Winston Churchill’s defeat in the parliamentary elections of 1945.

In short, the closer April 24 is, the higher the rates are. Turkey’s position is rather complicated, as she may be left with only one ally against ratification of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols, namely Azerbaijan, an unreliable ally, ready for blackmail and betrayal. The case of the Azeri gas tariff should have served as a lesson to Ankara. And maybe it did, who knows? Everything will be settled or unsettled by April. Most likely Ankara will ratify the Protocols to prevent adoption of the Resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Congress.