Publications /
Opinion

Back
Conflict Returns to the Caucasus
Authors
October 27, 2020

War has started again in the Caucasus, a region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea consisting of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and parts of Southern Russia. It is a kind of mountainous border between Asia and Europe, in a region with vast oil resources that was conquered by Russia a few hundred years ago. The fighting that has erupted is over an enclave known as Nagorno-Karabakh, a remote territory without strategic value that is nevertheless, as writer Andrew Higgins concluded in the New York Times (October 4), “the center of the most enduring and venomous of the ‘frozen conflicts’ left by the collapse of the Soviet Union”. Nagorno-Karabakh has 100,000 inhabitants, predominantly Armenians, and is located within the borders of Azerbaijan and controlled by factions with close ties to Armenia’s capital Yerevan. Relations between the two former Soviet republics, which together have fewer than 13 million people, have been tense since 1991, when Armenian military forces occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, which is internationally-recognized as a territory of Azerbaijan, a mainly Muslim nation.

The current fighting marks the worst round of violence since the early 1990s when as many as 30,000 people were killed and thousands were displaced before a 1994 ceasefire brought a fragile peace to the Caucasus. Moscow has signed a formal security alliance with Armenia, but is also delivering arms to its neighbor Azerbaijan. Turkey is a supporter of Armenia’s enemy in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, which also receives military hardware from Israel and F-16s from Washington. Azerbaijan has not only established a giant pipeline connecting its oil resources with Turkey, but has established notably close relations with Israel and occasionally is at odds with Iran, which publicly denied allegations that the mullahs were sending assistance to Armenia, which lacks economic resources and military hardware, unlike its enemy.

The Middle East research newsletter Al-Monitor (October 5) reported: “As Turkish-Israeli relations go from bad to worse, both Ankara and Jerusalem are backing Azerbaijan in the conflict. Armenia recalled its ambassador to Israel because of Israel’s selling arms to Azerbaijan.” When the battle began, Ankara deployed its drones and, allegedly, transferred a couple of thousand mercenaries from Syria to the front line. American made F-16s attacked targets around towns including Stepanakert, the main city in the contested enclave, which is also known as the republic of Artsakh. Armenia targeted the enemy’s second city, Ganja, which is located near oil and gas pipeline terminals. It is a diplomatic, political cacophony, which may develop into a global conflict, since Russia may be obliged to employ troops to aid Armenia, thus confronting fighters financed by Ankara. Azerbaijan’s military issued a statement that its objectives were to shift the status quo by seizing territory from the enclave. Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan alerted U.S. President Donald Trump’s national security adviser Robert O Brien by phone, asking why Washington was tolerating Turkey, its NATO ally, hitting Armenian targets with U.S. fighter jets. Possibly the U.S. President was still trying to recover from his COVID-19 infection. Heavy fighting continued in the Caucasus, a ceasefire agreement was ignored, members of the Minsk Group, established in 1992 by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, deplored the fighting, considered as an unacceptable threat to the stability of the region. Yet rockets were aimed at villages, artillery fire exchanged, fighter jets hit civilian targets. With Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan allegedly sending jihadist groups into the battle, the Turkish President crossed “a red line”, declared his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, who is also opposing Erdogan’s actions in Libya.

‘Putin and Erdogan Are no Longer Speed Dialing Each Other’

According to Andrew Higgins in the New York Times (October 6), the “conflict has set off alarms about the risks of a wider war and put the United States, with its large and politically influential Armenian diaspora, in the uncomfortable position of watching Turkey, a vital ally, deploying F-16 jets in support of Armenia’s enemies”. If the conflict spirals and spreads to flash points far from Nagorno-Karabakh, analysts suggest it raises the possibility of Russia and Turkey pitted in yet another proxy war.

Even more complicated, noted the New York Times (September 30): “At the same time, the countries kept up trade ties and cut natural gas deals and Turkey bought anti-aircraft missiles from Russia, angering the United States”. A Turkish news agency reported that Turkish-made drones had hit targets in Nagorno-Karabakh “raising the specter” warns Andrew Kramer, “of a proxy battle in the enclave”. Trespassing into former Soviet territory with arms “is not something Russia will look kindly at”, said Dmitry Trenin, director of the Moscow Carnegie Center. Nick Paton Walsh insisted in the CNN newsletter (October 5) that Putin and Erdogan “are no longer speed dialing each other. Erdogan has left Putin in perhaps his most delicate spot in years”. Moscow is deeply involved in conflicts in Libya and Syria, is dealing with a crisis in neighboring Belarus, whose dictator is threatened to lose power to a democratic movement. Recep Tayyip Erdogan is threatening to intervene for as long as needed in the Caucasus crisis: “As Turkey, with all our means and with all our heart, we stand with fellow and brother Azerbaijan and we continue to stand with it, God willing, until Nagarno-Karabakh is liberated from invasion, this struggle will continue” (Washington Post Newsletter, ‘Today’s world view’, October 5). Intervention by Ankara, writes Fehim Tastekin (Al-Monitor, October 3) “risks escalation with Russia. If Moscow comes to believe that Ankara has ulterior motives, such as expanding its Turco-Islamist influence to the South Caucasus as part of Erdogans’s neo-Ottoman ambitions, it won’t stand idle”.

For Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the current fighting poses an “existential threat” because of the role of Turkey, whose precursor, the Ottoman Empire killed an estimated 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the First World War. Political analyst Amberin Zaman claimed in the Al-Monitor newsletter (October 3), that Azerbaijan’s military action “was not sparked by accident but was preplanned by Azerbaijan and its regional ally Turkey”. Zaman’s analysis is that Turkey’s all-in support, including providing arms and training, can allow Erdogan “to claim credit for winning back Azerbaijani territory, however little, [which] would be an enormous boost to his droopy poll numbers in the midst of a looming economic crisis”.

 

The opinions expressed in this article belongs to the author.

RELATED CONTENT

  • April 23, 2025
    La proposition d’autonomie, avancée par le Maroc en avril 2007 comme base de règlement du différend autour du Sahara marocain, s’impose progressivement sur la scène internationale. Bien qu’elle soit rejetée par l’Algérie et le Polisario, cette Initiative a bénéficié, depuis son lancement, d’un large soutien international, en particulier de la part des États-Unis et de la France, qui ont réaffirmé leur appui à la souveraineté marocaine sur cette région. Le 8 avril 2025 ...
  • April 23, 2025
    The United States is at a critical juncture, facing a pivotal dilemma: preserving global leadership in a world it no longer fully controls. While it proclaims its primacy in the liberal international order, its actions tell a different story—one marked by tariffs, reshoring policies, and an open attempt to contain China’s rise. This strategy is driven less by long-term vision than domestic political calculus, underscoring the urgent need for strategic recalibration. ...
  • April 18, 2025
    In this episode, we discuss the Memorandum of Understanding between Ethiopia and Somaliland, exploring its key terms and strategic motivations. We assess how the deal reshapes the securit ...
  • Authors
    Fadoua Ammari
    April 18, 2025
    This Policy Brief analyzes the strategic significance of the reaffirmation by the United States, on April 8, 2025, of its support for Morocco’s sovereignty over the Moroccan Sahara and of Morocco’s autonomy plan for the territory. This position, which has been maintained under different U.S. administrations, confirms the appropriateness of the Moroccan approach based on compromise, regional stability, and economic integration. It reinforces the isolation of the Polisario Front, whos ...
  • Authors
    Fadoua Ammari
    April 16, 2025
    Le présent Policy Brief analyse la portée stratégique de la réaffirmation, le 8 avril 2025, du soutien américain à la souveraineté du Maroc sur son Sahara et à son plan d’autonomie. Ce positionnement, maintenu sous différentes Administrations américaines, consacre la pertinence de l’approche marocaine fondée sur le compromis, la stabilité régionale et l’intégration économique. Il renforce la dynamique d’isolement du Front Polisario, dont le discours figé sur l’indépendance peine à m ...
  • Authors
    April 8, 2025
    The Russia–Ukraine war, while primarily perceived as a European security crisis, has triggered deep structural shocks globally, disproportionately affecting the developing world—the “New South.” This essay explores how historical legacies, global economic dependencies, and shifting geoeconomic paradigms have converged through the war to exacerbate existing vulnerabilities in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. It critically examines the war’s impact through four interc ...
  • Authors
    Nizar Messari
    April 4, 2025
    The rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia since the election of President Trump for a second term, and more significantly, since his inauguration, has intrigued U.S. traditional allies as well as many politicians in the U.S. The argument presented here explains the causes of that rapprochement and places it within a global context that witnesses the establishment of a new world order, multipolar, in which the U.S. is a key player but not the dominant player it used to be in the ...
  • Authors
    April 3, 2025
    Le présent ouvrage reprend les contributions présentées à l’occasion de la première édition de la Conférence-débat sur les enjeux stratégiques des espaces maritimes de l’Afrique atlantique organisée par le Policy Center for the New South le 16 avril 2024. Une Conférence-débat qui procède d’une double logique : continuité et originalité. Une logique de continuité, d’abord, parce que l’Atlantique a toujours constitué pour le Policy Center, depuis la création du think ...
  • Authors
    February 26, 2025
    Geopolitical tensions and competing interests define the Eastern Mediterranean's energy landscape. Vast natural gas reserves offer economic potential, but overlapping maritime claims and ongoing conflicts—particularly the Israel-Lebanon war and the Gaza conflict—threaten existing agreements and future projects. The European Union’s efforts to reduce dependence on Russian gas initially positioned the region as a key supplier, but escalating instability now puts these ambitions at ris ...
  • Authors
    January 21, 2025
    According to the 2024 Secretary-General Report on Sahara (2024 Report), the biggest challenge may be the absence of progress in reaching a political solution to the Sahara Issue. Why has this conflict continued for half a century? In the 2024 Report, the Secretary-General has not attempted to give a stinging report on the resolution failure. The outline of the 2024 Report is largely as usual. Generally, to resolve a conflict, the proper parties should first be exactly identified. O ...