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

  • Authors
    Simone Tagliapieta
    Marion Jansen
    Yassine Msadfa
    Mario Filadoro
    August 28, 2017
    Endowed with half of the world’s known oil and gas reserves, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region became – particularly during the second half of the twentieth century – a cornerstone of the global energy architecture (Yergin, 1991, 2011; Maugeri, 2006). This architecture is currently undergoing a structural transformation, prompted by two different forces: decarbonisation policies and technological developments. The adoption and quick entry into force of the Paris Agreem ...
  • Authors
    Abdelkhalek El Bikam
    Afang Ndong Zita
    Kourouma Oumar
    August 25, 2017
    The current economic, political and geo-strategic dynamics, centered on the major regional groups, announce a reconfiguration of the international order in which Africa is called to play an important role through its main continental institution which is the Union African Union (AU). The AU is increasingly emerging as the continent's platform with foreign partners, and continues to face problems of dependence, governance and leadership. Therefore, in a critical and forward-looking a ...
  • Authors
    August 4, 2017
    The African Peace and Security Annual Conference (APSACO), organized by the OCP Policy Center, was held from July 10 – 11, 2017 in Rabat. This first edition, focusing on the African Union’s (AU) strategic autonomy, aimed to facilitate a serious and constructive consideration of the various probable and realistic options for the rise of this international organization as an autonomous entity that is globally interdependent. The conference also aimed at launching a deep African debate ...
  • July 21, 2017
    La decisión del 15 de junio de 2017 del Tribunal Supremo de Sudáfrica, ordenando mantener el embargo del cargamento del fosfato marroquí con destino a Nueva Zelanda y remitir el caso a un juicio sobre el fondo, plantea tanto la cuestión de la capacidad del Polisario para entablar una acción ante una jurisdicción internacional como la de la independencia de la justicia Sudafricana en relación a las posiciones adoptadas por el gobierno de dicho país. ...
  • Authors
    July 7, 2017
    Ce Policy Brief traite de l’articulation entre le développement et la sécurité dans le bassin méditerranéen, ainsi que de l’implication des pays des deux rives, nord et sud, dans un partenariat assurant la sécurité nécessaire à un développement socio-économique conjoint. Les pays du Sahel prennent également part à l’analyse et conditionnent le succès des stratégies sécuritaires au Maghreb et au sein de l’Union Européenne. Le papier revient sur des exemples de pays riches mais frappé ...
  • Authors
    Christopher S. Chivvis
    June 20, 2017
    The United States and Europe share a common interest in addressing the growing terrorist threats from North Africa. The emergence of ISIL as a force in the region — notably in Libya, but also in Egypt and to a lesser degree in Tunisia, Algeria, and Mali — is cause for genuine concern. The ISIL challenge is compounded by the persistence of older terrorist organizations, both local ones such as the region’s various Ansar al Sharias as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), al ...
  • June 14, 2017
    The debate on defense is more relevant than ever in an evolving global context that is driven by the constant reconfiguration of geostrategic equilibriums and by the importance of the impacts of the economic and financial crisis on States’ budgets leading to pertinent questions such as: will defense policies be adapted to their future tasks? Will the military leaders’ strategists have sufficient means to effectively negotiate the adaptation process? In addition to the modernization ...
  • Authors
    May 25, 2017
    For its 6th edition, the Tana High-Level Forum on Security in Africa, held in Bahir Dar on Lake Tana in Ethiopia from April 22 to 23, 2017, focused on the theme of Natural Resource Governance in Africa. One of the forum session’s key discussion points sought to "understand and explain why the exploitation of these resources is increasingly a source of tension and violence, which have dramatic repercussions on the continent’s peace and stability." During the various events throughout ...
  • Authors
    May 25, 2017
    Le forum de haut niveau de Tana sur la sécurité en Afrique (22-23 Avril, 2017, Bahir Dar, Ethiopie) a choisi pour thème à sa 6e édition la question de la gouvernance des ressources naturelles en Afrique. L’une des sessions du forum avait cherché à « comprendre et à expliquer pourquoi l’exploitation de ces ressources est de plus en plus source de tension et de violence qui ont des répercussions dramatiques sur la paix et la stabilité sur le continent ». Lors des différentes intervent ...