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

  • May 2, 2014
    The financial and economic crisis that unfolded across the globe after the 2008 sub-prime meltdown was not just another cyclical bump in the conquering advance of modern capitalism. It was — and still is — a symptom of the exhausted 20th-century way of envisioning the best path to economic growth, consumer satisfaction, and efficient production of goods. Environmental limits to our race to prosperity are just part of the story. The other, and crucial, part is the ongoing technologic ...
  • Authors
    Ian Lesser
    November 18, 2013
    This policy brief argues for a closer relationship between Morocco and the United States. Morocco’s geo-economic position is evolving in ways that will shape U.S. and international interests in the country and open new avenues for cooperation. Key drivers of change in this context include Morocco’s stake in greater economic integration in the Maghreb, a growing role in Africa, new energy and infrastructure projects, and the emergence of Morocco as a hub for communications around th ...
  • Authors
    Alice Ekman
    February 1, 2013
    Ces deux dernières années ont été marquées par les mouvements de protestation dans le monde arabe. Ces mouvements ont été suivis avec la plus grande attention par les autorités chinoises, préoccupées à la fois par les conséquences intérieures, sur l’opinion publique et la stabilité politique du pays, et extérieures, sur les intérêts économiques et les ressortissants chinois présents en Afrique du Nord. Mais ces mouvements ont-ils changé la perception et les orientations stratégiques ...
  • Authors
    Isabelle Saint-Mezard
    February 1, 2013
    Ce travail s'intéresse aux relations entre l'Inde et le Maghreb, défini comme comprenant l'Algérie, le Maroc et la Tunisie, ainsi que la Libye et l'Egypte. L'objectif est, dans un premier temps, de comprendre comment l’accélération de la croissance économique indienne, manifeste depuis une dizaine d’années, se traduit dans les relations avec les pays du Maghreb et la sous-région d’Afrique du Nord. Il est, dans un second temps, d’étudier plus précisément la réaction de l’Inde face au ...
  • Authors
    Emiliano Alessandri
    William Inboden
    Dhruva Jaishankar
    Joseph Quinlan
    Andrew Small
    Amy Studdart
    December 1, 2012
    This policy paper examines the role of China and India in Latin America and Africa, and the implications for the United States and Europe. China and India have arrived as active players in the Southern Atlantic space. Their economic presence is expanding rapidly, with a focus on their acquisition of — and access to — raw materials such as fossil fuels, minerals, and agricultural commodities. The political and security implications of their arrival in the region is only now coming u ...
  • Authors
    Ian Lesser
    Geoffrey Kemp
    Emiliano Alessandri
    S. Enders Wimbush
    February 10, 2012
    This study argues that Morocco should encourage policymakers in the United States and Europe to think more imaginatively about its role in the Atlantic and elsewhere. Recent events underscore the reality that stability in Morocco’s neighborhood cannot be taken for granted. The implications of protracted instability in Morocco’s near abroad — the Maghreb and West Africa — would be substantial, adding to the opportunity costs of poor integration in the region, and strengthening the l ...