Nagorno-Karabakh lives on, but Aliyev loses patience and gets nervous. Stanislav Tarasov

Long time the figure of the Russian political scientist Stanislav Tarasov was so mysterious that some even doubted her physical existence. But now there is more information about this leader of the Armenian agitprop, and we can tell you more about him.

Why Armenian agitprop?

Formally, Tarasov is a Russian commentator, but judging by his publications, he fiercely hates the Turks and actually generates many, if not almost all, radical ideas directed against Azerbaijan and its allied Turkey in terms of international relations. Thus, he pours water on the mill of Armagitprop, and in general, one glance at the line of his works is enough to establish a connection between this scholiast and Armenian propaganda. Every time, to the point and not to the point, often contrary to the glaring facts, this political observer tries with all his might to fulfill the social order of the Yerevan masters. It’s also good, if it’s only social and not material ... However, what I don’t know, I don’t say about that.

The boss, Mr. Tarasov, after some wanderings in various pro-Armenian structures, also selected the appropriate one - Modest Kolerov, a figure as adventurous as it is scandalous. Indeed, recently Tarasov was appointed chief editor of the Eastern edition of IA Regnum.

Tarasov was born in 1953, according to some sources - in Baku, according to others - in Ganja. If we adhere to the last, Armenian version, then it turns out that two "Kirovobad people" work in Armagitprop (Kirovabad was the name of Azerbaijani Ganja in Soviet time) Is Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan and Stanislav Tarasov. Although I am not a supporter of harsh definitions on the verge of obscenity, comparison is literally asking for a pen. If the first is like a clown in the arena of political bullfighting, who attracts the attention of the crowd, amuses the audience and gets applause from the sympathetic part of the audience, then the second is a bullfighter who really strikes an image blow and gains genuine glory among the elite and intellectuals.

It just so happened that almost all the fire of Azerbaijani criticism is directed at the fidgety Levonchik. However, Stanislav Nikolayevich, with his insinuating patter, remains as if in the shadows, although this gray cardinal of Armagitprop is much more dangerous ideologically and politically, since he is smart and enjoys authority, as a supposedly "objective and independent analyst", according to some, always staying above the fight ...

That is why today we decided to devote time and space to Tarasov, or rather to expose his cunning and not too clean methods of propaganda balancing act.

A journalist, albeit with great, but Soviet experience, accustomed, therefore, to scold whoever is indicated, and to praise who is ordered. In all respects, the track was retired to him, but the last feature looked to the Armenian fishers of human souls from Yerevan. After all, agitprop does not need objective, thinking and independent analysts, they need obedient performers of the line of Armenian expansionism and militarism.

So, from the implementation of the line of the CPSU, Stanislav Nikolayevich switched to the introduction into the fragile minds of readers of the ideas of international terrorism, of which the world Armenians are a part. Tarasov was once again promoted, even appointed director of the Middle East - Caucasus Research Center of the International Institute of the Newest States.

Hmm, an inexhaustible Armenian fantasy in deceiving and fooling the public, although everyone understands that the "newest" states mean the self-styled "independent Karabakh". And now a new promotion is the chief editor of the Eastern edition of IA Regnum, which, for sure, also did not go without "friends" and patrons from Yerevan. Interestingly, does the Western, Northern and Southern editions in Regnum also exist, or is the Eastern edition exclusive for persons especially close to the sacred body of Emperor Modest?

Tarasov conducts his propaganda mainly by two intrusive methods. The first is when conclusions that are absolutely inappropriate to them are drawn from generally correct and logical reasoning. As in the Russian proverb - "in the garden - elderberry, in Kiev - uncle". Those. the conditioning part of the argument is at a break with the imposed conclusion.

The second trick of our prestizhitator from political science is his inescapable confidence that the world is ruled by a couple of competing forces or superpowers, and all other countries are just obedient pawns in the wrong hands. I would call this political science paradigm the "shepherd and flock" psychology.

The fact is that Mr. Tarasov is a specialist in the old Soviet school, he grew up and formed as an international observer in a bipolar world, where each of the two superpowers in the sphere of its absolute influence enjoyed indisputable authority and inexhaustible opportunities. Such a paradigm of a shepherd or a dominant shepherd dog and a submissive flock has not worked for a long time. In a world like Tolstoy's, "everything is confused in the Oblonskys' house," so that even small countries or political movements can have a decisive influence on large regional and even global geopolitics.

First of all, the Turkophobe Tarasov is trying to view Turkey as a puppet in the hands of the West and, above all, the United States. But the Republic of Turkey is no longer the defeated and fragmented country of the times of the Treaty of Sevres, or just an unsinkable NATO aircraft carrier of the 50-60s of the XX century. After the collapse Soviet Union Turkey has gone up sharply in its economic power, which always entails political weight and military potential, and now it is a purely national potential, which can and will be used exclusively in its own Turkish interests.

This flawed philosophy is equally applied by our author, who imagines himself to be an original political scientist, both to Azerbaijan and to Georgia. Even Tarasov does not give a penny to Armenia and gives it encouraging curtsies only as long as Yerevan, like a sheep, dutifully follows in the channel of Moscow, even if this path leads the sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Stanislav Tarasov is a very experienced and strong demagogue even by high Soviet standards. When you read it, you seem to dissolve in the high, scientific calmness of the author, so in the end it is even difficult to determine what the writer wanted to say. Thus, taking hostage by IS militants of two dozen Turkish soldiers at the grave of Suleiman Shah, according to Tarasov and, incidentally, the Armenian press, is a reason for Turkey's invasion of Syria. But Tarasov regards the retention of forty-nine employees of the Turkish diplomatic mission in Mosul as an excuse for Ankara's joining the anti-Caliphate coalition ...

In general, Tarasov acts in accordance with the well-known saying "the law is like a rod: where you turn, there you go." Only in the case of our "hero" we will replace the word "law" with "fact" - and then we will get an exact wording that can describe the activities of the new chief editor of the Eastern edition of IA Regnum.

Stanislav-Tarasov

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is in Nagorno-Karabakh, where an extraordinary meeting of the Council is being held for the first time national security Armenia. In this regard, some Armenian experts claim that Yerevan had been planning to hold such a meeting for a long time. In the current concrete political context, it comes after the OSCE Minsk Group's statement, which was unusual in its openness.

You are amazed at how many authoritative Russian publications, and not only they, work with official documents... For example, the OSCE Minsk Group for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. One of them, followed by many other agencies, reported on the latest statement spread by the mediators as follows: “The co-chairs ... expressed support for the readiness of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to meet at the highest level.”

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov paid an official visit to Iran. In Tehran, he held a number of bilateral meetings with his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif, was received by President Hassan Rouhani, Chairman of the Islamic Consultative Council Ali Larijani, and spoke with the Secretary Supreme Council national security Ali Shamkhani. This immediately suggests that, in addition to discussing “ topical issues bilateral cooperation, regional interaction, transport ...

There are no preconditions for reaching agreements on the settlement of the Karabakh issue at the upcoming meeting of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russian political scientist, expert on the problems of the countries of the Middle East and the Caucasus Stanislav Tarasov said this in an interview with Novosti Armenia-NEWS.am correspondent.

Recently, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov contacted by phone the Russian co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Igor Popov. The reason, as reported by the Baku editions, was “the last statement of the head of the National Security Service of Armenia Artur Vanetsyan”. The fact is that at the end of February, he visited the southern section of the contact line in the Karabakh conflict zone bordering Iran, and, as noted, “on the spot got acquainted with the course of military service and the current situation.” At the same time, according to Armenian publications, ...

Passivity of the OSCE Minsk Group in last months against the background of the meetings of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is evidence of the existence of some kind of working draft, which is not made public. Stanislav Tarasov, a Russian political scientist, an expert on the problems of the Middle East and the Caucasus, said this in an interview with News.am, noting that the OSCE MG was relegated to the background.

The second meeting of the Russian-Armenian "Lazarev Club" is being held in Moscow on March 5-6. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Sergei Glazyev, National Hero of Armenia, member of the Federation Council Nikolay Ryzhkov, general manager Concern "Monarch" Sergei Ambartsumyan, member of the Federation Council Igor Chernyshenko, deputy State Duma Russia Yuri Mishcheryakov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia Vladimir Kazimirov, Chairman of the National Assembly of Armenia of the sixth convocation Ara Babloyan, Editor-in-Chief ...

The other day, Georgian Defense Minister Levan Izoria announced that in March 2019, Georgia will host the annual Georgia-NATO command and staff exercise. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg intends to attend them. According to Izoria, "for the first time in the history of Georgia, such exercises will be fully led by the leadership of the Defense Forces of Georgia." He also announced the arrival of representatives of 22 countries (according to other sources - 17), which are members and partners of NATO. For a later period, it is planned ...

Turkish newspaper Sözcü reported that former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is preparing to become the leader of a new political party to be created by "the former heavyweights of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)." The names of ex-ministers Ali Babacan, Mehmet Shimshek and Nihat Ergun are announced. The publication claims that negotiations are underway with ten current deputies from the AKP in an attempt to lure them over to their side. According to him, the creation of a new party will be announced after the local elections, ...

When reports began to arrive that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had resigned and brought in social networks apologies to the Iranian people "for all the shortcomings that occurred during the time" when he was minister, we decided not to rush to comment on this an important event... Important not only for Iran, but for the entire Middle East.

On February 27, Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili will pay an official visit to Azerbaijan, where he will hold meetings and negotiations on high level with officials republics. According to the press service of the Georgian presidential administration, the purpose of the visit is "to continue and develop strategic partnership with Azerbaijan as a neighboring state, along with deepening political, economic and trade relations."

Recently, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke on the joint air of CNN Türk and Kanal D. In addition to the attitude to the most acute "Turkish sore", the creation of a security zone in northeastern Syria, which "should be formed taking into account the interests of Ankara, any other options unacceptable, ”he spoke about the leaders of two Arab states - Syria and Egypt. Speaking about Bashar al-Assad, the Turkish president said that “he cannot recognize him as a legitimate authority, which he ...

At an expanded meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers dedicated to the results of socio-economic development in 2016, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev in his speech touched upon the problems of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The theses he voiced illustrate Baku's approaches to this problem after the summits of the heads of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Vienna and St. Petersburg in 2016.

These meetings took place shortly after the bloody April battles on the line of contact of the conflicting parties, which were stopped only after the personal mediation efforts of Russian President Vladimir Putin. After that, at active participation The OSCE Minsk Group made efforts to legally consolidate the agreements reached, which determine the need to introduce a monitoring system and international observers into the conflict zone. The more frequent fighting in the conflict zone, due to which Baku and Yerevan, as usual, accuse each other of complicating the situation, further actualizes the need to implement the agreements. Moreover, the co-chairing countries of the Minsk Group openly declared that this very mechanism is capable of creating real preconditions for the transition to the so-called broad negotiations to resolve the conflict.

Last year, first in August and then in December, there was talk of the possibility of another summit between Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sargsyan. It didn't work out. First of all, because Baku, although it participated, did not put its signature on the Vienna and St. Petersburg agreements. However, Azerbaijani diplomacy has publicly appealed to these documents more than once, and, apparently, will continue to refer to them. An obvious methodological failure follows from this. You can blame Yerevan as much as you like for “attempting to organize sabotage in the conflict zone, striving to destabilize the situation on the border”, but who would believe this, if the Armenian side has always openly declared its agreement to introduce a monitoring system on the contact line and observers, and the Azerbaijani side has always opposed, thus brackeing the question of who attacked first, which involuntarily suggests a certain interest in violating the ceasefire regime and in disrupting the Vienna and St. Petersburg processes. Why?

In our opinion, this is because since the second half of 2016, the definition of “frozen” began to return in the vocabulary of politicians of many countries in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It was recently used by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. And a little earlier - by US Secretary of State John Kerry at the Washington Ideas forum. Kerry said that currently there is no possibility of a settlement, as "the leaders are not ready." It is clear that the “frozen conflict” finds itself on the periphery of world politics and diplomacy, attention is paid to it on a leftover basis, and if they return to the problem, then only as an “appendage” to some parallel geopolitical issue. In addition, when considering the prospects for the settlement of "frozen conflicts", it is necessary to take into account, first of all, not so much the theoretical principles of international law as the demands of "real politics".

Azerbaijan is not satisfied with this. After the April war, there was an intensification of diplomatic efforts in the settlement process, but then it practically came to naught while maintaining the status quo. Using the terminology of international law, we can say that the "frozen conflict" is not peace, but an armistice, that is, a return to the 1994 situation. This course of events does not suit Baku, which has begun to play for aggravation. On the one hand, one can see the desire to change the format of the conflict settlement, created for the non-resumption of armed confrontation of the legal basis. On the other hand, as Aliyev spoke about at a meeting of the government, Azerbaijan "can resolve the issue by military means at any time." Indeed, Baku is increasing spending on arming the army. An inevitable question arises: what will the “defrosting” work for - for the military-political revenge of the side that considers itself a loser, or is it about destabilizing the situation in the region with the inevitable involvement of external players in the conflict with the subsequent destruction of the balance of power not only in the Transcaucasus, but also perhaps in the Greater Middle East? Or did Aliyev feel the weakening of the resource of the "won" (according to Baku's version) April war, because his statements are more conditioned by the internal political situation in Azerbaijan?

The problem is that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has long become a toolkit both in the hands of the conflicting parties and external players. Armenia, not without hesitation, staked on Russia, and, as it turns out, competently predicted and planned its foreign policy. Baku, having designated the so-called “multi-vector approach,” actually took a course “away from Russia,” joining various tactical international alliances. But in the end, the American publication National Interest states, since the outbreak of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, none of the American administrations has taken a single step in order to resolve the conflict by Azerbaijani scenario, although Presidents Bush Jr., Clinton and Obama were playing the Azerbaijani "card" with might and main, beckoning Baku with the prospects of participation in the policy of reducing energy dependence Europe from Russian gas (in exchange for what? - S.T.), then building vague horizons of "European integration", then endowing Azerbaijan with the status of a rear foothold, "providing operations in Afghanistan and intelligence operations against Iran."

At the same time, it turned out that the American external agenda became the Azerbaijani internal one, and when Baku showed obstinacy, the West brought to the fore the issues of "systematic violations of human rights, mass arrests of journalists and opposition representatives." For the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, this meant that the "authoritarian regime" could not expand the zone of influence "even at the expense of the territories with the Armenian population that once entered its borders." At one time, this formula was explained by the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar, stating that Washington is building “ close relationship only with democratic countries ”. He said the following: “I am trying to proceed from the logic of the Azerbaijani government and understand their position. They claim that they are forced to take such steps in the name of stability in the country. They say that Azerbaijan is located in a very dangerous region. This is indeed the case. But we have a different position, we believe that the more civil society is open, the stronger the stability will be. This is in the interests of both the society itself and the government of the country. But sometimes it takes incomprehensible and unnecessary steps, in particular, tortures citizens. But we have always talked and will continue to talk with the government of Azerbaijan about democracy and human rights. "

At the same time, according to Morningstar, under certain conditions pressure on civil society in Azerbaijan can provoke events similar to those in Ukraine. From this it followed that for the United States and its partners, new opportunities in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would appear only in the case of democratization of Azerbaijan, but not otherwise. Let's not hide the fact that with regard to Armenia, Russia's ally, it was also possible, if desired, to raise questions about the observance of the principles of democracy. However, Moscow never gave "lectures" to Yerevan on this topic. But Aliyev's regime found itself in the grip of the concept of "energy resources separately, Nagorno-Karabakh separately." By the way, the strategic partner of Baku, Turkey, is also going through similar processes. As a result, the events in Ukraine pushed President Aliyev to start active diplomatic maneuvers with Moscow, Washington and Brussels, but these are only tactical moves. Now, Baku experts are trying to project the foreign policy statements of the new US President Donald Trump on Azerbaijan with the expectation that "in the next four years, the United States will be less interested in human rights problems in this country."

However, Azerbaijan is outright outplaying Armenia. She is a member of the CSTO, a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, simultaneously signs trade and investment agreements with Washington, creates a bilateral trade and investment council, and regularly takes part in the work of NATO's Partnership for Peace program. Can we assume that in this way Yerevan is pursuing a policy of double standards towards Moscow? No, because this is how they competently build a "multi-vector" approach that allows maintaining the status quo in the region, and in which any military move by Baku can be qualified as an act of aggression, violation of the previously reached agreements on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Frankly speaking, Armenia is lucky that in Azerbaijan the power was monopolized by politicians who think “ Short course VKP (b) ”, not capable of flexible diplomacy, which means they are not able to defend their national interests. Although, if Baku still considers the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to be its citizens, it is high time for it to go directly to Stepanakert and bring him into the negotiation process. Refuse from information war, on the contrary, organize a trip to Stepanakert for Azerbaijani journalists, and not increase the shameful "black list" of those who "illegally" visit Nagorno-Karabakh. To dissolve the headquarters of national historians who have made a “scientific” career in the spelling “ new history”Without Armenians and even Russians. Make Washington and Moscow "twitch" by initiating something similar to the Camp David Agreement between Israel and Egypt.

In a word, Azerbaijani diplomacy needs to work, and not declare that someone "owes" something to Baku. Take steps, even unilateral ones, to demonstrate your willingness to negotiate. It is necessary to finally realize the fact that it was the Bolsheviks, first of all the Azerbaijani ones, who contributed to the creation of Azerbaijan within the former Soviet borders. And it was the very same Bolsheviks who did everything to ensure that Nagorno-Karabakh moved away from Baku. New Azerbaijan needs to be built on different principles. In the meantime, co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Stefan Schennak and Cesar Florin Preda arrived in Baku with an "inspection mission". After meeting with statesmen and politicians, the auditors should assess Azerbaijan's progress in fulfilling its obligations to the Council of Europe and prepare a report. I wonder what they will write there this time?