Former Deputy Minister of Defense Artak Zakaryan writes:
"During the meeting with Vladimir Putin in Omsk, the President of Kazakhstan, Kasim-Jomart Tokayev, proposed to freeze the ongoing war in Ukraine and return to negotiations based on the "Istanbul Resolution 2:0".
This position of official Astana was not new.
However, at this high-level meeting, the President of Kazakhstan made two more remarkable statements.
The first was that President Tokayev openly told President Putin that the reasons for the Russian-Ukrainian war remain unclear to many, including Kazakhstan. He also emphasized that he respects the Ukrainian people, their culture and language.
The head of the country, bound by alliance obligations with Russia, actually hinted to the Russian president that the continuation of the war, even for Moscow's closest partners, is increasingly difficult to justify. Thus, Astana does not follow the path of damaging relations with the Kremlin, but it also does not want to take political responsibility for its actions.
The second remarkable statement was that, speaking about the Artsakh conflict, Mr. Tokaev said: "The nature and origins of the frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia were extremely clear and obvious to Kazakhstan and other countries, as their origins were 'rooted in history.'
How to interpret this ambiguous statement?
First of all, let's note that in 2023 On November 3, President Tokayev congratulated Aliyev in Astana for the restoration of territorial integrity. From this, can we assume that Tokayev welcomed the war unleashed by Azerbaijan and the thousand-year depopulation of Armenian Artsakh? And can we assume that the Artsakh conflict was clear to them only in terms of the principle of territorial sovereignty, and not in terms of the principle of self-determination of nations?
Because if President Tokayev is guided only by territorial integrity, then the Russian-Ukrainian war should have been understandable and unambiguous for them as well. And if the Artsakh conflict was clear and obvious for the official Astana, and the Ukrainian conflict was not, can we assume that they were confused between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination of nations?
Especially, as part of the CSTO's joint statements (2016, 2017), Kazakhstan supported the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship, by which the resolution of the Artsakh conflict was based on three well-known and equal principles.
Isn't it true that the Russian-Ukrainian war is a struggle for territorial integrity on the Ukrainian side, and the right to self-determination on the Russian side? Of course, if we put aside the geopolitical interests of different countries, which are also obvious and understandable.
I certainly understand that talking about other people's conflicts and giving advice is always easier. But you should also know that it is one of the extremely sensitive issues of the peoples who are dying for their rights and freedom.
P.S.
Official Yerevan has always said that the Artsakh issue was not comparable to other conflicts. And as everyone was convinced, it was the simple truth. Because when you support only the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, you directly contribute to the deprivation of the country of more than a hundred thousand ethnic Armenians and the risk of genocide."
