At the moment, tangible pressure on Aliyev comes exclusively from the USA and Iran to a lesser extent
American scholar Suren Sargsyan wrote on his Facebook page.
"At the moment, tangible pressure on Aliyev comes exclusively from the USA and, to a lesser extent, from Iran.
The State Department and the White House statements are more specific, and the footnotes are clearer. Aliyev is made to understand that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is not yet resolved in the USA, and they know who initiates the military operations. Naturally, all this is not done for our beautiful eyes or brilliant diplomacy. The USA has its regional interests; the democratic administration has its own.
Above all, the US does not like Aliyev's inappropriate behavior and statements directed at the Minsk Group, particularly the US co-chairmanship. The Americans explain to Aliyev that he is not the one who decides what the future of the Central Committee should be.
Every morning, the US president (literally) receives the information and analysis of dozens of intelligence agencies, within the framework of American interests, about various parts of the world. In other words, no military vehicle of any state can cross the border of another state unnoticed. Therefore, it makes no sense to deceive; the USA has more special services employees than Azerbaijan has population. Therefore Aliyev's information sabotage is not for the superpowers.
As far as telephone conversations are concerned, experience shows that public diplomatic wording can usually be milder than the transcription of a telephone conversation.
It is symbolic that the Americans appoint a co-chair, realizing that the co-chairman of the other side is Russia; that is, they are also ready to cooperate with Russia.
Armenia's position on the IC issue is essential here. If Armenia also wants to follow the example of Azerbaijan to bury the IC, it means that the task becomes twice as easy.
As for Tehran, Iran's statements naturally worry Aliyev, and I do not rule out that the lack of action from the direction of Nakhichevan may be due to this."
Ter-Petrosyan really couldn't disobey the demand of the trio he raised?22 September, 19:05
You often hear that we rejected the favorable version of the Karabakh conflict solution and the possibility of a dignified peace.
Should the "transition" responsibility remain on Armenia with its enormous challenges?20 September, 10:47
There is a point of view: "the US said, what more can we say, the step is ours, will we take that step, will the US give us the weapons?"
This is a conspiracy against Armenia16 September, 18:14
And why did the ambassadors of CSTO members Belarus and Kazakhstan not join? Will the Armenian Foreign Ministry react in any way and express its attitude to the behavior of these pseudo-allies (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan do not have an embassy in Armenia)?
Armenia is in front of informational threats. What is the real purpose of media attacks?