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

  • June 13, 2023
      سنحاول في هذه الحلقة الوقوف عند إحداثيات وتداعيات عودة هيمنة القطبية الثنائية على المشهد الدولي، بعد نحو 3 عقود من أفولها إثر انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في عام 1991، واحتدام الاستقطاب على وقع الأزمة الأوكرانية الذي يهدد عمل المنظمات الدولية وسط تصاعد دعوات إصلاح منظومة الأمم المتحدة بش...
  • Authors
    Imane Lahrich
    June 12, 2023
    The security landscape in the Sahel region has undergone significant changes in recent years. From the emergence of Russia as an actor in the region to the persistent issue of trafficking, and the challenges of political transitions in countries including Chad and Sudan, the Sahel faces complex and interconnected security challenges. This insight summarizes our biannual Strategic Dialogues, focusing on the new security landscape in the Sahel, its regional developments, and its impli ...
  • Authors
    June 8, 2023
    A tragedy of historic proportions The war is gruesome and may not end for months or years. Not ending with the white flag of surrender, but total depletion and exhaustion, men and missiles, tanks, and terror. The battlefield is hell, as it is in all wars. A nightmare and human folly. “We are learning in Ukraine how to fight”, admitted the former President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskalte, “and we are learning how to use our NATO equipment. It is a teaching battle”. Yes, this politi ...
  • Authors
    June 5, 2023
    Le propos semblera tautologique à beaucoup, mais les géographies ne sont pas - seulement - des œuvres de la Création, ou le produit du hasard et des accidents de la vie de la Terre. Elles sont, presque plus fondamentalement, pourrait-on dire, le produit du regard actif de l’Homme, qui, porté sur elles, les façonne, par le travail, et par la projection de représentations mentales dans la matière. Cette capacité de l’Homme à (se) projeter (par) son regard dans l’espace visibilise les ...
  • Authors
    Eugène Berg
    Christophe Chabert
    Thierry Garcin
    Rodolphe Monnet
    Amiral Alain Oudot de Dainville
    Olivier Tramond
    Hind Zaamoun
    May 11, 2023
    Les Dialogues Stratégiques, une collaboration entre HEC Center for Geopolitics et Policy Center for the New South, représentent une plateforme d'analyse et d'échange biannuelle réunissant des experts, des praticiens, des décideurs politiques, ainsi que le monde universitaire et les médias au service d'une réflexion critique et approfondie sur les tendances politiques mondiales et sur une problématique d'intérêt régional, d'importance commune à la fois pour l'Europe et l'Afrique. C ...
  • May 8, 2023
    In March 2023, the brutal demise of the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was the first to happen as a result of the hiking of interest rates that central banks started implementing from late 2021 onwards. Although the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a US government corporation pr...
  • May 4, 2023
    La première bipolarisation a appartenu au XX° siècle et opposé États-Unis et URSS. Avec la guerre froide, elle était l'expression de la rivalité entre deux systèmes antagonistes. La seconde est née de la montée de la Chine populaire qui est entrée en compétition avec les États-Unis. Une compétition au départ économique et technologique, devenue aussi, au fil du temps, culturelle et stratégique, dans un monde interdépendant et digitalisé, mais également segmenté, complexe et incertai ...
  • April 14, 2023
    Geographical proximity, historical ties, and cultural and social exchanges largely account for Italy’s enduring engagement with the Maghreb. Abdessalam Jaldi, International Relations Spec ...
  • April 10, 2023
    This policy paper examines India’s growing engagement in North Africa, focusing on five countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Despite lacking a distinct regional policy for North Africa, India has amplified its bilateral engagement with these countries, underpinned by a steadfast commitment to the principle of South-South cooperation. Through its strategic moves in North Africa, India has established a powerful southern-west axis for its foreign policy that stretch ...