Phillips embodies a neolib/neocon leaning U.S. foreign policy establishment narrative, which over the course of time has proven to be hypocritically faulty. This bias explains the negative highlighting of Armenia signing under duress, unlike 1990 Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro), relative to Kosovo. In the latter instance, Phillips spins Kosovo as having been “liberated”, as in taken away from Serbia.

In the aforementioned National Interest commentary, Phillips’ disparaging of Russian peacekeepers is hypocritically inappropriate and inaccurate; especially when considering his comparatively tame response to the post-1999 Albanian nationalist abuses against Serbs in Kosovo, under the NATO led KFOR peacekeeping operation. Then again, the Serbs were often enough typecast as the overwhelmingly heavy bad guys in the 1990s period of Balkan area fighting – never mind the facts to the contrary, which reveal a more nuanced situation.

The conflict involving Armenia and Azerbaijan is another such reality. The Armenians unjustly suffered in the past – something that modern day Turkey and Azerbaijan (as well as some others) downplay. As the Soviet Union was breaking up, the Armenian majority in Nagorno-Karabakh sought to be separate from an independent Azerbaijan. Shortly thereafter, numerous Armenians experienced violence in the Azeri capital Baku.

After the Soviet breakup, Azerbaijan was headed by a pro-Turkish/anti-Russian tilted government, when the Armenians were militarily more adept than the Azeris. During this period, the Armenians established a clear dominance in the areas of the former Azerbaijan SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) which they controlled. Many Azeris fled these areas with harsh stories.

As the years passed, the Aliyev family (father then son), have governed Azerbaijan, with improved Russian-Azeri relations, as Russia sought to maintain good ties with Armenia. Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel wealth and larger (compared to Armenia) population didn’t bode well for the future of Armenian dominance on some former Azerbaijan SSR land.

The Azeris have never gone against the position that the boundaries of the former Azerbaijan SSR remain in place as an independent state. This posture has solid international backing. In a certain sense, Armenia has diplomatically contradicted itself by not formally recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence (unlike some individual states and towns within several countries and a few disputed former Soviet territories which do), or formally recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as a part of Armenia.

With considerable Turkish support, the successfully recent Azeri military advance took many by surprise. It’s first and foremost the responsibility of Armenia to be best informed of any potential armed action against it. In a world where might often still makes right (whether one likes it or not), Armenia isn’t a major power.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, didn’t help Armenia’s standing with Russia, by saying and implementing some Russia unfriendly stances. The recently signed peace agreement involving Russian peacekeepers saved Armenia from a greater loss. A BBC segment included a withdrawing Armenian soldier, approving of the war’s cessation, saying that he and his comrades would’ve been annihilated. For the immediate future, the Russian peacekeeping role and increased global attention, serves to diminish the likelihood of further violence in the former Azerbaijan SSR.

Russia has good reasoning to seek positive relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Over the decades, the U.S. has jostled over Greek-Turkish differences, including the matter of northern Cyprus.

Pashinyan comes from a media background. Another BBC segment said that the Armenian public’s outrage over the deal stemmed from the Armenian government not initially giving an accurate portrayal of how the recent fighting was actually going. Like the former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili (now criminally wanted in Georgia) and some other Soros preferred neolib slanted individuals from the former Communist bloc, Pashinyan’s image as a democratic reformer has been challenged.

Regarding the Armenian-Azeri dispute, another Russia bashing moment is evident in the November 11 Al Jazeera Inside Story show “Will the Latest Ceasefire Bring Peace to Nagorno-Karabakh?“. This particular show highlights that Armenian officials declined an appearance. Meantime, there was no mainstream Russian representation, as that country’s role was denigrated.

One of the guests, Turkophile Matthew Bryza, belittles Russian peacekeepers, by noting their presence in the former Georgian SSR, with a questionable take on how the 2008 war in the former Georgian SSR started. It was the Georgian side under the neocon/neolib preferred Saakashvili, which brazenly went into South Ossetia killing Russian peacekeepers and some other Russian citizens.

Bryza said that Armenia has just suffered its greatest defeat since the Bolsheviks and perhaps before them. What utter BS, given the genocide of the Armenians, which isn’t recognized by Turkey, Azerbaijan and the U.S. My anti-Communism aside, the USSR provided Armenia with a republic. Prior to the Soviet Union, Armenians were slaughtered and driven from their homes en masse, largely on account of the belief that they generally favored Russia over Turkey.

Russia just ended a bloody war on its former territory by diplomacy. Watch the video and read more in the Editorial article.

During six weeks of intense fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces which erupted on September 27 over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory, it is estimated that up to 5,000 lives were lost. As many as 100,000 civilians were displaced. The ceasefire brokered this week by Russia has to be welcomed as preventing further escalation and suffering which could have presaged a wider war in the Caucasus region.

The truce this week is the fourth attempt at bringing about a cessation over the past 44 days. But the latest ceasefire which came into effect on Tuesday appears to be holding because both sides have given a firmer public commitment to abiding by the agreement. A joint statement was issued by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev along with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Crucially, Turkey has also agreed to support the cessation. Ankara’s supply of advanced weaponry to Azerbaijan had given Baku a decisive advantage against Armenian forces in the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave.

The enclave is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan’s national territory but it has been ruled by ethnic Armenians since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. A war in 1992-94 saw 30,000 dead and expanded territorial control by the Armenian side. Much of those past territorial gains have been recovered by Azerbaijan in the latest conflict. However, the Armenians still retain governance of the capital city Stepanakert in the self-declared republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. The internationally unrecognized republic is also known as Artsakh which is aligned with the Republic of Armenia. The Artsakh leadership has given its consent to the ceasefire.

The ceasefire is being implemented with the deployment of 2,000 Russian peacekeeping troops who arrived this week and will patrol the contact line in Nagorno-Karabakh and a corridor linking the territory to Armenia. The peacekeeping arrangement is to hold for five years on a renewable basis in order to give parties to the conflict time to negotiate a final settlement on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Armenian side had no choice but to accept the ceasefire. From a military point of view, it stood to lose all of the disputed territory. Casualties were bound to be even greater if the war continued. Furthermore, the conflict was endangering the entire Caucasus region if Armenia and Azerbaijan had hurtled towards direct hostilities between the two nations. Russia due to a defense pact with the Republic of Armenia could have been dragged into war with NATO member Turkey which backs Azerbaijan with which it shares Turkic ethnicity.

It was therefore imperative to halt the slide towards disastrous war. Russian diplomacy achieved a vital way out of spiraling hostilities.

Moscow has friendly relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is thus in Russia’s interest to maintain peace among its southern neighbors. One wonders if there was a hidden agenda by foreign powers in reigniting this conflict in the Caucasus. The deployment by Turkey of mercenary fighters from Syria and Libya in support of Azerbaijan had the potential for dangerous escalation. Azerbaijan borders Dagestan and Chechnya in Russia’s southwest where Moscow waged a war against Islamist extremists in the late 1990s. It is remarkable how absent the United States and European powers have been in helping to resolve the crisis.

The situation remains perilous. But having Russian peacekeepers separating combatants will give peace a strong chance of holding and diplomacy working. It is not going to be easy to negotiate. Under the terms of the ceasefire, the Armenian side is obliged to cede areas of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan which it had controlled for nearly a quarter of a century since the 1992-94 war.

In Armenia there are bitter recriminations over the ceasefire deal. Protesters decrying it as a “sell-out” stormed government buildings in Yerevan demanding the resignation of premier Nikol Pashinyan. Critics point out too that since Pashinyan came to power in 2018 he has pursued an adventurist policy of declaring Nagorno-Karabakh independence which provoked Azeri nationalist reaction. Many Armenians, however, seem resigned to accept the reality that a ceasefire was the only option to avoid more grievous losses. Russia has a defense pact with the Republic of Armenia, not Nagorno-Karabakh. Moscow is not a guarantor of Yerevan’s external aspirations.

Russia’s standing as a peace broker in Syria and its trusted diplomatic power was no doubt key to averting the brink of disaster in the Caucasus.

In a phone call this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly backed Moscow’s efforts at mediating a ceasefire in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Notwithstanding, Erdogan appeared to deliver an ultimatum to his Russian counterpart. He said that there must be a “permanent solution” to the decades-long territorial dispute.

Erdogan and his Azerbaijan ally have already made it clear that the only solution acceptable to them is for Armenian separatists to relinquish their claim to Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey and Azerbaijan – bound by common Turkic culture – have long-called the Armenian-held enclave an illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territory since a border war ended in 1994.

When hostilities flared again last month on September 27 initial reports suggested the clashes were of a haphazard nature with both sides trading blame for starting the violence. However, it has since become clear that the actions taken on the Azeri side seem to have been a planned aggression with Turkey’s full support.

Following a previous deadly clash on July 12-13 involving about a dozen casualties among Armenian and Azerbaijani forces, there then proceeded massive military exercises in Azerbaijan involving 11,000 Turkish troops beginning on July 29. For nearly two weeks into August, the maneuvers deployed artillery, warplanes and air-defense units in what was evidently a major drive by Ankara and Baku to coordinate the armies from both countries to fulfill joint operations. Furthermore, reports indicated that Turkish forces, including F-16 fighter jets, remained in Azerbaijan following the unprecedented military drills.

Alongside the drills, there was also a dramatic increase in military arms sales from Turkey to Azerbaijan. According to Turkish export figures, there was a six-fold increase in weapons deals compared with the previous year, with most of the supply being delivered in the third quarter of 2020 between July and September. The armaments included drones and rocket launchers which have featured with such devastating impact since hostilities erupted on September 27.

A third factor suggesting planned aggression was the reported transport of mercenary fighters from Syria and Libya by Turkey to fight on the Azerbaijani side. Thousands of such militants belonging to jihadist brigades under the control of Turkey had arrived in the Azeri capital Baku before hostilities broke out on September 27. The logistics involved in organizing such a large-scale deployment can only mean long-term planning.

Armenian sources also claim that Azeri authorities had begun impounding civilian vehicles weeks before the shooting war opened. They also claim that when the fire-fights erupted on September 27, Turkish media were present on the ground to give live coverage of events.

It seems indisputable therefore that Turkey and Azerbaijan had made a strategic decision to implement a “final solution” to the protracted dispute with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

That’s what makes Russian efforts at mediating a cessation to hostilities all the more fraught. After marathon talks mediated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a ceasefire was introduced on October 10. However, within hours the truce unravelled with reports of resumed exchange of fire and shelling of cities on both sides. The main violations have been committed by the Azerbaijani side using advanced Turkish weaponry. Armenian leaders have complained that the Azeri side does not seem interested in pursuing peace talks.

More perplexing is the widening of the conflict. Azerbaijan air strikes since the weekend ceasefire broke down have hit sites within Armenia, extending the conflict beyond the contested enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has also claimed that Armenian missiles have hit cities within its territory. Armenia flatly denies carrying out such strikes, which begs the question: is a third party covertly staging provocations and fomenting escalation of conflict?

What is challenging for Russia is that it has a legal obligation to defend Armenia as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (1992). With Armenia coming under fire, the pressure will be on Moscow to intervene militarily.

This would see Russia being embroiled in another proxy war with NATO-member Turkey. But this is not in Syria. It is the Caucasus region on Russia’s southern border. There are concerns among senior Russian military figures that such a scenario is exactly what Turkey’s Recep Erdogan is aiming for. Turkey was outplayed by Russia in the proxy war in Syria. Erdogan and NATO’s plans for regime change in Damascus were dealt a bloody nose by Russia. It seems though that conflict in the Caucasus may now be Erdogan’s revenge.

Moscow may need to seriously revise its relations with Ankara, and let Erdogan know he is treading on red lines.

When Ben Franklin spoke those words in 1776, the elder statesman was stating a simple truth that unless the early colonies overcame their differences, fears and prejudices to unite under a higher unifying self interest that transcended their “local” concerns, they would all be mutually destroyed.

Today, these same words apply just as well to those modern states who, though not American, have everything to lose by clinging onto historic resentments, prejudices, and Cold War traditions. These same states have all to gain by joining hands and working together on projects which will benefit each others’ children and grandchildren.

A special case can be seen in today’s conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan whose clashes over the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh which began on September 27^th as the Azerbaijani government began firing upon the small pro-Armenian enclave within its territory.

It was heartening to witness certain progress towards a peace agreement take shape with the Macron-Putin-Trump joint statement of October 1^st, and advanced upon by the recent peace treaty brokered by Russia signed on October 10^th by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. In spite of these positive steps, belligerent hotheads in Azerbaijan and beyond have chosen to “hang separately” and have wasted no time demonstrating their commitment to total war as missiles, and other heavy artillery reined down upon civilian and military targets alike only minutes after the treaty was to come into effect.

What makes this issue so dangerous during our current age of renewed thermonuclear sabre-rattling on Russia’s southern and Arctic borders, is that it is but one of a wide array of hotspots that are simultaneously being lit on fire under a strategy which is comparable to the same sort of asymmetric warfare that characterized much of the world during the dark days of the Cold War. These were the days when such luminaries as Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke openly of playing the “Islamic card” against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and as millions of dollars moved through CIA fronts and into radical madrasas throughout the Arab world.

From renewed conflict in Kyrgyzstan where recent election results are being disputed, to anarchy in East Ukraine, to Belarus where a full color revolution was recently put into motion, to Georgia where Saakishvilians have seen a rise in popularity leading into October elections to Moldova’s Transnistria autonomous zone which remains a point of contention waiting to be sparked… it appears that the seeds of discord are being sowed all across Russia’s soft underbelly among ethnic groups of the former Soviet Union.

Recognizing the danger of radical Islamic terror groups from Syria and Libya spreading into Russia via Azerbaijan amidst the current crisis, the head of Russian Intelligence Sergei Naryshkin stated that “We cannot but be concerned that the South Caucasus is capable of becoming a new launchpad for International terrorist organizations, from where militants can subsequently enter states neighboring Azerbaijan and Armenia, including Russia”. Naryshkin was referring to the vast throngs of Islamic militants from such sects as Jabhat al-Nusra, Firkat al-Hamza and Sultan Murad who have been deployed as mercenaries alongside over 150 Turkish officers working in Command positions in Azerbaijan.

So rather than idly sit back and watch terrorism burst into Russia, Europe and beyond, a more useful question to ask is: What sorts of pathways would a creative statesman focus upon which might defuse these conflict zones, and transform hopeless discord into harmonious collaboration?

For starters, President Trump and other western statesmen would do well to continue on the positive momentum begun on October 1^st by giving his full backing to the recent peace agreement brokered by Russia.

Trump displayed the right instincts in his earlier September 4^th peace initiative between Serbia and Kosovo in the White House and a continuation of that display in the current Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict would be a welcomed follow up. Just as the Serbia-Kosovo agreements were driven by an understanding that economic development had to lead (and not follow) any durable formal effort at peace, the same principle applies to the current crises in the Caucasus and other parts of Central Europe being lit on fire.

Just as the American Development Finance Corporation, in tandem with the Export Import Bank committed to fund strategic railways and roads connecting Serbian and Kosovo capitals, provide long term loans to SMEs and build a rail to the deep sea port on the Adriatic to the tune of $1 billion, similar projects involving both Armenia, Azerbaijan and other Central Asian nations await construction requiring only support from the west. The principled driver for these long term programs involves the vast multimodal International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC).

This corridor is a 7200 km network of rail, roads, and ports connecting India with Russia via the ports of Chabahar and Bandar Abbas in Iran through a vast network of rail towards Russia.

First established in 2002 by Russia, Iran and India, the INSTC has grown to include Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Belarus and Oman (with Bulgaria having recently joined as an observer). This program in many ways parallels the new model of long term investment pioneered by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and involves integrating and unifying nations into spheres of common interests rather than competing over diminishing returns of resources or other points of divisions. By avoiding the Suez Canal, this project will cut 15 days off the transit of goods from India to Russia. Meanwhile Russia is finalizing a free trade zone with India and the Eurasian Economic Union (comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) and has just finalized another free trade agreement between the EEU and Serbia. Both the EEU and Belt and Road Initiative have signed integration agreements already bringing the INSTC and BRI into greater harmony and defusing ever more tension.

Since the extension of the BRI into Russia’s Far East and Arctic via the Polar Silk Road, the INSTC has taken on a new identity as a harmonious segment of this new development complex. What is stopping the USA from investing in these projects?

Under these dynamics the long overdue Southern Armenian Railway could be built with financial assistance from the USA providing the missing 316 km link of the North South Transport Corridor between the Black Sea and Persian Gulf. This project involves an incredible 84 bridges (19.6 km) and 60 tunnels (102.3 km) through the mountainous terrain ultimately connecting the Persian Gulf’s main artery to Europe with vast benefits for all nations and people involved. Of course, this would involve a total re-think of America’s anti-Iranian agenda… but we are talking about avoiding World War after all.

One of the greatest causes of strife and division which has continuously thwarted peacemaking initiatives over the years has been poverty and insecurity. The INSTC, BRI and other great infrastructure projects would not only create new relationships and open up new markets over the course of many years, but would also provide the basis for new industries, increased productive potential and incredible investment potentials for all interests regardless of religious, ethnic or other differences which imperialists have sought to exploit for eons.

If President Trump pushes forward with political and economic support for this positive orientation, then the foundation for durable peace can finally be created and the terrible threats of anarchy, terrorism and war may be averted.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Documents reveal a flurry of activity to convince beltway elites that Armenia is the aggressor and the U.S. should favor Azerbaijan.

Barbara BOLAND

As conflict heats up over Nagorno-Karabakh, a tiny Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan, a covert battle is taking place on Capitol Hill to win the hearts and minds of lawmakers in Washington.

Since hostilities began on September 27, hundreds of lives have been lost as Azerbaijani drones have flown within 20 miles of Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, and an Armenian strike was carried out on a military base in Azerbaijan’s second city, Ganja. 

“The next targets could be oil and gas facilities in Azerbaijan, or Yerevan and Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku,” reports the New York Times, an escalation with the potential to draw in Turkey, Russia, and Iran on opposing sides.

Well-armed and financed Azerbaijan is receiving assistance from Turkey, an American ally. Turkish drones and jets have been exacting civilian casualties on Armenians, and as TAC previously reported, Armenians are in danger of ethnic cleansing once again.

“Civilians are bearing the brunt of surge in violence,” reported the International Committee of the Red Cross on October 2. They added, “Civilian deaths and injuries, including of children, have been reported on both sides of the line of contact, and in Armenia.”

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has ramped up its public relations campaign, employing not one but six of K Street’s heavy-hitting firms, including the Livingston Group, Stellar Jay Communications, BGR, the Podesta Group, and DLA Piper. Last year the country spent $1.3 million on lobbying.

Armenia traditionally lobbies through American community groups, and has just one firm working for them, Alston and Bird. The contract was signed September 16, so it’s unclear how much money they will spend petitioning Washington this year, but documents reveal they haven’t spent any money lobbying since 2016.

Azerbaijan, on the other hand, lobbies in much the same manner as a Gulf State—though with considerably less resources—and has a long history of extensive lobbying efforts. 

In an attempt “to whitewash its dictatorial image…the autocratic government of Ilham Aliyev has unleashed spin-doctors, duped reporters, and led one of the most brazen pushes to abuse American lobbying loopholes of any foreign government,” wrote Casey Michel in 2016.

For years, lobbyists on the dime of Azerbaijan have met with universities, think tanks, and members of Congress. They’ve arranged the placement of favorable op-eds in outlets like The Hill, the Washington Times, the Daily Caller,National Review, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. These articles were initially published without disclosing the authors’ financial ties to Azerbaijan.

While oil-rich Azerbaijan’s lobbying slowed after 2016 due to the collapse of its currency, Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) documents reveal a flurry of recent activity aimed at convincing Washington elites that Armenia is the aggressor and that the U.S. should favor Azerbaijan in the conflict.

When American lobbying and public relations firms are hired by foreign countries, they are legally required to register their clients with the Justice Department under FARA. They are also required to provide a list of the activities they undertake on behalf of the foreign country.

Azerbaijan’s hired K Street guns are distributing what are euphemistically referred to in FARA documents as “informational materials.” These materials could be more accurately described as propaganda. The documents distributed on Capitol Hill highlight Armenia’s “provocative actions,” its “illegal” role in the conflict, that Armenia allegedly “kills Azerbaijani civilians, including children,” and how “Armenia’s leaders have been actively undermining the ongoing peace process.”

The documents lobbyists distribute on Capitol Hill make some incredulous claims: that “Armenia has long been involved with Middle Eastern terrorism,” that “Azerbaijan has been consistent in urging substantive and result-oriented negotiations in order to achieve a breakthrough in the conflict,” and that “Turkey is not directly involved and is not a party to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.”

The Nagorno-Karabakh region has been contested between Yerevan and Baku since the fall of the USSR but things remained mostly quiet after the end of the war for the region in 1994. Now Turkey has become a new world player.

Pepe ESCOBAR

Few geopolitical hot spots across the planet may rival the Caucasus: that intractable, tribal Tower of Babel, throughout History a contentious crossroads of empires from the Levant and nomads from the Eurasian steppes. And it gets even messier when one adds the fog of war.

To try to shed some light into the current Armenia-Azerbaijan face off, let’s crisscross the basic facts with some essential deep background.

Late last month Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s proverbial “strongman”, in power since 2003, launched a de facto war on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh held by Armenia.

At the collapse of the USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh had a mixed population of Azeri Shi’ites and Armenian Christians. Yet even before the collapse the Azerbaijani Army and Armenian independentists were already at war (1988-1994), which yielded a grim balance of 30,000 dead and roughly a million wounded.

The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence in 1991: but that was not recognized by the “international community”. Finally there was a ceasefire in 1994 – with Nagorno-Karabakh entering the gray area/no man’s land of “frozen conflict”.

The problem is that in 1993, the United Nations had approved no less than four resolutions – 822, 853, 874 and 884 – establishing that Armenia should withdraw from what was deemed to be roughly 20% of Azerbaijani territory. This is at the core of Baku’s rationale to fight against what it qualifies as a foreign occupation army.

Yerevan’s interpretation though is that these four resolutions are null and void because Nagorno-Karabakh harbors an Armenian-majority population who wants to secede from Azerbaijan.

Historically, Artsakh is one of three ancient provinces of Armenia – rooted at least in the 5^th century B.C. and finally established in 189 B.C. Armenians, based on DNA samples from excavated bones, argue they have been settled in Artsakh for at least 4,000 years.

Artsakh – or Nagorno-Karabakh – was annexed to Azerbaijan by Stalin in 1923. That set the stage for a future powder keg to inevitably explode.

It’s important to remember that there was no “Azerbaijan” nation-state until the early 1920s. Historically, Azerbaijan is a territory in northern Iran. Azeris are very well integrated within the Islamic Republic. So the Republic of Azerbaijan actually borrowed its name from their Iranian neighbors. In ancient history, the territory of the new 20^th century republic was known as Atropatene, and Aturpakatan before the advent of Islam.

How the equation changed

Baku’s main argument is that Armenia is blocking a contiguous Azerbaijani nation, as a look in the map shows us that southwest Azerbaijan is de facto split all the way to the Iranian border.

And that plunges us necessarily into deep background. To clarify matters, there could not be a more reliable guide than a top Caucasus think tank expert who shared his analysis with me by email, but is insistent on “no attribution”. Let’s call him Mr. C.

Mr. C notes that, “for decades, the equation remained the same and the variables in the equation remained the same, more or less. This was the case notwithstanding the fact that Armenia is an unstable democracy in transition and Azerbaijan had much more continuity at the top.”

We should all be aware that “Azerbaijan lost territory right at the beginning of the restoration of its statehood, when it was basically a failed state run by armchair nationalist amateurs [before Heydar Aliyev, Ilham’s father, came to power]. And Armenia was a mess, too but less so when you take into consideration that it had strong Russian support and Azerbaijan had no one. Back in the day, Turkey was still a secular state with a military that looked West and took its NATO membership seriously. Since then, Azerbaijan has built up its economy and increased its population. So it kept getting stronger. But its military was still underperforming.”

That slowly started to change in 2020: “Basically, in the past few months you’ve seen incremental increases in the intensity of near daily ceasefire violations (the near-daily violations are nothing new: they’ve been going on for years). So this blew up in July and there was a shooting war for a few days. Then everyone calmed down again.”

All this time, something important was developing in the background: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in May 2018, and Aliyev started to talk: “The Azerbaijani side thought this indicated Armenia was ready for compromise (this all started when Armenia had a sort of revolution, with the new PM coming in with a popular mandate to clean house domestically). For whatever reason, it ended up not happening.”

What happened in fact was the July shooting war.

Don’t forget Pipelineistan

Armenian PM Pashinyan could be described as a liberal globalist. The majority of his political team is pro-NATO. Pashinyan went all guns blazing against former Armenian President (1998- 2008) Robert Kocharian, who before that happened to be, crucially, the de facto President of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Kocharian, who spent years in Russia and is close to President Putin, was charged with a nebulous attempt at “overthrowing the constitutional order”. Pashinyan tried to land him in jail. But even more crucial is the fact that Pashinyan refused to follow a plan elaborated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to finally settle the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh mess.

In the current fog of war, things are even messier. Mr. C stresses two points: “First, Armenia asked for CSTO protection and got bitch slapped, hard and in public; second, Armenia threatened to bomb the oil and gas pipelines in Azerbaijan (there are several, they all run parallel, and they supply not just Georgia and Turkey but now the Balkans and Italy). With regards to the latter, Azerbaijan basically said: if you do that, we’ll bomb your nuclear reactor.”

The Pipelineistan angle is indeed crucial: for years I have followed on Asia Times these myriad, interlocking oil and gas soap operas, especially the BTC (Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan), conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski to bypass Iran. I was even “arrested” by a BP 4X4 when I was tracking the pipeline on a parallel side road out of the massive Sangachal terminal: that proved British Petroleum was in practice the real boss, not the Azerbaijani government.

In sum, now we have reached the point where, according to Mr. C,

“Armenia’s saber rattling got more aggressive.” Reasons, on the Armenian side, seem to be mostly domestic: terrible handling of Covid-19 (in contrast to Azerbaijan), and the dire state of the economy. So, says Mr. C, we came to a toxic concourse of circumstances: Armenia deflected from its problems by being tough on Azerbaijan, while Azerbaijan just had had enough.

It’s always about Turkey

Anyway one looks at the Armenia-Azerbaijan drama, the key destabilizing factor is now Turkey.

Mr. C notes how, “throughout the summer, the quality of the Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises increased (both prior to July events and subsequently). The Azerbaijani military got a lot better. Also, since the fourth quarter of 2019 the President of Azerbaijan has been getting rid of the (perceived) pro-Russian elements in positions of power.” See, for instance, here.

There’s no way to confirm it either with Moscow or Ankara, but Mr. C advances what President Erdogan may have told the Russians: “We’ll go into Armenia directly if a) Azerbaijan starts to lose, b) Russia goes in or accepts CSTO to be invoked or something along those lines, or c) Armenia goes after the pipelines. All are reasonable red lines for the Turks, especially when you factor in the fact that they don’t like the Armenians very much and that they consider the Azerbaijanis brothers.”

It’s crucial to remember that in August, Baku and Ankara held two weeks of joint air and land military exercises. Baku has bought advanced drones from both Turkey and Israel. There’s no smokin’ gun, at least not yet, but Ankara may have hired up to 4,000 Salafi-jihadis in Syria to fight – wait for it – in favor of Shi’ite-majority Azerbaijan, proving once again that “jihadism” is all about making a quick buck.

The United Armenian Information Center, as well as the Kurdish Afrin Post, have stated that Ankara opened two recruitment centers – in Afrin schools – for mercenaries. Apparently this has been a quite popular move because Ankara slashed salaries for Syrian mercenaries shipped to Libya.

There’s an extra angle that is deeply worrying not only for Russia but also for Central Asia. According to the former Foreign Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ambassador Extraordinary Arman Melikyan, mercenaries using Azeri IDs issued in Baku may be able to infiltrate Dagestan and Chechnya and, via the Caspian, reach Atyrau in Kazakhstan, from where they can easily reach Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

That’s the ultimate nightmare of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – shared by Russia, China and the Central Asian “stans”: a jihadi land – and (Caspian) sea – bridge from the Caucasus all the way to Central Asia, and even Xinjiang.

What’s the point of this war?

So what happens next? A nearly insurmountable impasse, as Mr. C outlines it:

1. “The peace talks are going nowhere because Armenia is refusing to budge (to withdraw from occupying Nagorno-Karabakh plus 7 surrounding regions in phases or all at once, with the usual guarantees for civilians, even settlers – note that when they went in in the early 1990s they cleansed those lands of literally all Azerbaijanis, something like between 700,000 and 1 million people).”

2. Aliyev was under the impression that Pashinyan “was willing to compromise and began preparing his people and then looked like someone with egg on his face when it didn’t happen.”

3. “Turkey has made it crystal clear it will support Azerbaijan unconditionally, and has matched those words with deeds.”

4. “In such circumstances, Russia got outplayed – in the sense that they had been able to play off Armenia against Azerbaijan and vice versa, quite successfully, helping to mediate talks that went nowhere, preserving the status quo that effectively favored Armenia.”

And that brings us to the crucial question. What’s the point of this war?

Mr. C: “It is either to conquer as much as possible before the “international community” [in this case, the UNSC] calls for / demands a ceasefire or to do so as an impetus for re-starting talks that actually lead to progress. In either scenario, Azerbaijan will end up with gains and Armenia with losses. How much and under what circumstances (the status and question of Nagorno-Karabakh is distinct from the status and question of the Armenian occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh) is unknown: i.e. on the field of battle or the negotiating table or a combo of both. However this turns out, at a minimum Azerbaijan will get to keep what it liberated in battle. This will be the new starting point. And I suspect that Azerbaijan will do no harm to the Armenian civilians that stay. They’ll be model liberators. And they’ll take time to bring back Azerbaijani civilians (refugees/IDPs) to their homes, especially in areas that would become mixed as a result of return.”

So what can Moscow do under these circumstances? Not much,

“except to go into Azerbaijan proper, which they won’t do (there’s no land border between Russia and Armenia; so although Russia has a military base in Armenia with one or more thousand troops, they can’t just supply Armenia with guns and troops at will, given the geography).”

Crucially, Moscow privileges the strategic partnership with Armenia – which is a member of the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) – while meticulously monitoring each and every NATO-member Turkey’s movement: after all, they are already in opposing sides in both Libya and Syria.

So, to put it mildly, Moscow is walking on a geopolitical razor’s edge. Russia needs to exercise restraint and invest in a carefully calibrated balancing act between Armenia and Azerbaijan; must preserve the Russia-Turkey strategic partnership; and must be alert to all, possible US Divide and Rule tactics.

Inside Erdogan’s war

So in the end this would be yet another Erdogan war?

The inescapable Follow the Money analysis would tells us, yes. The Turkish economy is an absolute mess, with high inflation and a depreciating currency. Baku has a wealth of oil-gas funds that could become readily available – adding to Ankara’s dream of turning Turkey also into an energy supplier.

Mr. C adds that anchoring Turkey in Azerbaijan would lead to “the creation of full-fledged Turkish military bases and the inclusion of Azerbaijan in the Turkish orbit of influence (the “two countries – one nation” thesis, in which Turkey assumes supremacy) within the framework of neo-Ottomanism and Turkey’s leadership in the Turkic-speaking world.”

Add to it the all-important NATO angle. Mr. C essentially sees it as Erdogan, enabled by Washington, about to make a NATO push to the east while establishing that immensely dangerous jihadi channel into Russia: “This is no local adventure by Erdogan. I understand that Azerbaijan is largely Shi’ite Islam and that will complicate things but not render his adventure impossible.”

This totally ties in with a notorious RAND report that explicitly details how “the United States could try to induce Armenia to break with Russia” and “encourage Armenia to move fully into the NATO orbit.”

It’s beyond obvious that Moscow is observing all these variables with extreme care. That is reflected, for instance, in how irrepressible Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, earlier this week, has packaged a very serious diplomatic warning: “The downing of an Armenian SU-25 by a Turkish F-16, as claimed by the Ministry of Defense in Armenia, seems to complicate the situation, as Moscow, based on the Tashkent treaty, is obligated to offer military assistance to Armenia”.

It’s no wonder both Baku and Yerevan got the message and are firmly denying anything happened.

The key fact remains that as long as Armenia proper is not attacked by Azerbaijan, Russia will not apply the CSTO treaty and step in. Erdogan knows this is his red line. Moscow has all it takes to put him in serious trouble – as in shutting off gas supplies to Turkey. Moscow, meanwhile, will keep helping Yerevan with intel and hardware – flown in from Iran. Diplomacy rules – and the ultimate target is yet another ceasefire.

Pulling Russia back in

Mr. C advances the strong possibility – and I have heard echoes from Brussels – that “the EU and Russia find common cause to limit Azerbaijani gains (in large part because Erdogan is no one’s favorite guy, not just because of this but because of the Eastern Med, Syria, Libya).”

That brings to the forefront the renewed importance of the UNSC in imposing a ceasefire. Washington’s role at the moment is quite intriguing. Of course, Trump has more important things to do at the moment. Moreover, the Armenian diaspora in the US swings drastically pro-Democrat.

Then, to round it all up, there’s the all-important Iran-Armenia relationship. Here is a forceful attempt to put it in perspective.

As Mr. C stresses, “Iran favors Armenia, which is counter-intuitive at first sight. So the Iranians may help the Russians out (funneling supplies), but on the other hand they have a good relationship with Turkey, especially in the oil and gas smuggling business. And if they get too overt in their support, Trump has a casus belli to get involved and the Europeans may not like to end up on the same side as the Russians and the Iranians. It just looks bad. And the Europeans hate to look bad.”

We inevitably come back to the point that the whole drama can be interpreted from the perspective of a NATO geopolitical hit against Russia – according to quite a few analyses circulating at the Duma.

Ukraine is an absolute black hole. There’s the Belarus impasse. Covid-19. The Navalny circus. The “threat” to Nord Stream-2.

To pull Russia back into the Armenia-Azerbaijan drama means turning Moscow’s attention towards the Caucasus so there’s more Turkish freedom of action in other theaters – in the Eastern Mediterranean versus Greece, in Syria, in Libya. Ankara – foolishly – is engaged in simultaneous wars on several fronts, and with virtually no allies.

What this means is that even more than NATO, monopolizing Russia’s attention in the Caucasus most of all may be profitable for Erdogan himself. As Mr. C stresses, “in this situation, the Nagorno-Karabakh leverage/’trump card’ in the hands of Turkey would be useful for negotiations with Russia.”

No question: the neo-Ottoman sultan never sleeps.

sott.net

The armed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has escalated over the past week to all-out war. Military casualties are reportedly in the thousands after the worst episode of violence since the end of a war 26 years ago. Civilians are among the dead and towns are coming under heavy artillery fire. Warplanes are being shot down on both sides.

In a joint statement issued this week, the presidents of Russia, the United States and France called for an immediate ceasefire and for both sides to engage in dialogue to resolve the long-running dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Both South Caucasus nations lay claim to the highland area.

Previously, the dispute has erupted in violent clashes periodically since the end of a six-year war in 1994. But this week, the frozen conflict has exploded, and there is sinister potential for a protracted war because of outside interference from Turkey. How damnable too that Turkey is a member of NATO, an organization which claims to be about peace and security.

Russia, the U.S. and France are co-chairs of the Minsk Group assigned in 1992 by the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) to maintain peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The United Nations Security Council also called this week for a cessation in military operations and for a negotiated resolution. The quick diplomatic coordination between Moscow, Washington and Paris is a sign of how grave the conflict is turning. And that coordination is a reminder of how important cooperative multilateral relations are for international security. (Shame on those who promote Russophobia and poisoning of relations; for the emerging crisis in the Caucasus is reason why strong working relations are vital for maintaining peace and security.)

The Armenian authorities reportedly signaled Friday that they are willing to reestablish a ceasefire through the OSCE. It remains to be seen if the Azerbaijani side will reciprocate.

Turkey’s pernicious role in the conflict needs to be called out and condemned.

Ankara has become a direct participant in the war, although Turkey dissembles cynically by claiming it is not involved. That claim is negated by several facts:

Turkey has recruited and dispatched thousands of mercenary fighters from northern Syria to fight on the side of Azerbaijan. That these militants are mainly associated with proscribed terror groups such as Islamic State (Daesh) points to a potentially dirtier and longer war akin to what has happened in Syria over the past decade.

Turkey is supplying F-16 fighter jets to Azerbaijan which have been involved in offensive operations, and in all probability flown by Turkish pilots. That means Ankara is a de facto belligerent in this conflict, albeit without having officially declared war. There are credible reports that Azerbaijan’s air force and military are in effect being commanded by Ankara.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has over the past week made incendiary statements proclaiming Azerbaijan’s right to take control of Nagorno-Karabakh by force. Erdogan has vowed Turkey’s support in this endeavor, declaring “brotherly” relations with Azerbaijan as “one nation, two states”.

In short, Turkey is fueling this war. It should be borne in mind that Turkey’s Defense Minister Hulusi Akar is on record admitting that Turkish military have been building up forces in Azerbaijan over recent months. The dispatch of thousands of mercenaries from Syria to Azerbaijan under Turkey’s auspices is not a spontaneous development. It would have required months of planning and logistics.

All this indicates that the eruption of violence this week has been orchestrated by Ankara. It seems to be part of Erdogan’s geopolitical gaming to enlarge Turkey’s regional power and influence. His Neo-Ottoman ambitions have been manifest elsewhere in the covert war Turkey fomented against Syria with disastrous consequences, as well as in Ankara’s involvement in Libya’s civil war and the recent flare-up of tensions with Greece over East Mediterranean hydrocarbon resources. The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh fits into this Machiavellian power play by Turkey. Turkey has historic cultural relations with Azerbaijan going back to the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian genocide carried out by Turkey in 1915-16 in which 1.5 million people were slaughtered is a painful reminder of Ankara’s shameful and nefarious role in today’s resurgence of conflict.

Azerbaijani authorities would do well to recognize that their country is being manipulated by Ankara to satiate Erdogan’s political ambitions. Baku must tell Ankara to back off, as should the international community. Further entanglement can only lead to greater violence and catastrophe for all the people of the South Caucasus.

Azerbaijan claims that Nagorno-Karabakh represents about 2o per cent of its territory which has been illegally occupied by separatist ethnic Armenians supported by neighboring Armenia. It is a complicated dispute going back at least a century. The area is predominantly populated by Christian Armenians, while Azerbaijan is majority Muslim. The Armenians claim the enclave to be part of Armenia and they point out that it was arbitrarily assigned to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic by Stalin in the 1920s. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh wanted to rejoin Armenia. There is an analogy here to the complicating Soviet legacy with regard to Ukraine and Crimea and how the latter was arbitrarily assigned to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by Khrushchev in the 1950s only for it to later secede in 2014 and rejoin Russia.

In any case, the only acceptable way forward is for both sides to immediately engage in negotiations to resolve the conflict and to avoid further confrontation. That means Turkey desisting from fomenting aggression and abiding by international law.

Erdogan’s deleterious conniving in Nagorno-Karabakh is a disgraceful continuation of his regime’s dirty war in Syria. That’s not just an indictment of Turkey alone. For it is also a member of the NATO alliance which proclaims to uphold peace and security and which is seeking to expand its membership in the Caucasus region. Turkey must back off, and so must NATO.

As of September 29, the Azerbaijani advance in the Nagorno-Karabakh region struck the Armenian defense and Azerbaijani forces were not able to achieve any military breakthroughs. Armenian troops withdrew from several positions in the Talish area and east of Fuzuli.

The Azerbaijani military has been successfully employing combat drones and artillery to destroy positions and military equipment of Armenia, but Azerbaijani mechanized infantry was unable to develop its momentum any further.

While both sides claim that they eliminated multiple enemy fighters and made notable gains, the real situation on the ground remains more or less stable with minor gains achieved by Azerbaijani troops. Armenian sources say that 370 Azerbaijani troops were killed and over 1,000 injured. The number of killed Armenian fighters, according to Azerbaijani sources, is over 1,000. Armenian sources also note the notable role of Turkey in the developing conflict.

Armenian President Armen Sarkissian said that Turkey has been assisting Azerbaijan in its war against the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic with advisers, mercenaries and even F-16 fighter jets. He added that the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is still possible through dialogue. However, the President emphasized that the Armenian nation cannot allow a return to the past.

“105 years ago, the Ottoman Empire carried out the genocide of the Armenians. In no case can we allow this genocide to be repeated,” Sarkissian said.

Armenia threatens to use Iskander short-range ballistic missile systems obtained from Russia against Azerbaijani targets if Turkish F-16 warplanes are employed on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, Armenian Ambassador to Russia Vardan Toganyan said that members of Turkish-backed Syrian militant groups have been already participating in the conflict. He said that recently about 4,000 Turkish-backed militants were deployed to Azerbaijan. In turn, the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan said that “people who have arrived from Syria and other countries of the Middle East” are fighting on the side of Armenia. Earlier, pro-Turkish sources claimed that Armenia was transporting fighters from the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region. Thus, the sides are not only claiming that they are gaining an upper hand in the war, but also accuse each other of using foreign mercenaries and terrorists.

On the evening of September 28, the Defense Ministry of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic confirmed that 84 of its troops were killed in the recent escalation. The Armenian side also claimed that its forces had shot down an Azerbaijani aircraft. However, this claim was denied by the Azerbaijani military. Baku continues insisting that all Armenian claims about the Azerbaijani casualties in the war are fake news.

On September 29, the Armenian side continued reporting about Azerbaijani helicopters being shot down, and declaring that they repelled Azerbaijani attacks. Nonetheless, the scale and intensity of the strikes by the Azerbaijani side did not demonstrate any decrease. On top of this, the Armenian Defense Ministry said that a Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet shot down an Armenian Su-25 warplane. The F-16 fighter jet allegedly took off from the Ganja Airbase in Azerbaijan and was providing air cover to combat UAVs, which were striking targets in Armenia’s Vardenis, Mec Marik and Sotk. Azerbaijan and Turkey denied Armenian claims that a Turkish F-16 shot down the Su-25.

So far, no side has achieved a strategic advantage in the ongoing conflict. However, the Azerbaijani military, which receives extensive support from Turkey, is expected to have better chances in the prolonged conflict with Armenia, if Erevan does not receive direct military support from Russia.

southfront.org