Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Armenia Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Russia’s Deterrence Strategy in Nagorno-Karabakh

Author:
Miguel Paradela López
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
The article analyzes the two-part strategy Russia developed to address the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020. First, the country helped to weaken Armenia’s position in Nagorno-Karabakh and consolidate Azerbaijan’s. Second, the Russian military deployed peacekeeping troops to the border of the two countries to stabilize the conflict, deter any new Azeri military advance in the region and improve the Russian influence in the Caucasus. Although this strategy was initially successful, as it increased Russia’s military capacity in the region, the unexpected complications Russia experienced during the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 severely weakened its role as peacekeeper and deterrence power. Russia’s involvement in a highly demanding conflict has led to considerable suffering, increased international pressure, and a deteriorated perception of its military power, precluding it from deterring the expansion of a Turkish-backed Azerbaijan. As a result, Russia’s deterring capacity failed as it was uncapable of sending a credible threat to Azerbaijan and this country could achieve historic goals in the region. Consequently, Russia severely compromised its own position in the Caucasus, and increasing pressure over Armenia should be expected.
Topic:
Territorial Disputes, Peacekeeping, Deterrence, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

2. Next Steps for Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
10-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
History was made at the White House on August 8, 2025, when President Donald Trump hosted Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for a landmark meeting. Against all odds, and after more than three decades of failed diplomacy by the international community, the two leaders from the Caucasus signed a joint declaration committing to a final peace treaty that will normalize relations between their countries. Their foreign ministers also initialed a draft version of that treaty, which the countries plan on fully ratifying within the next 12 months. Diplomats brokered this breakthrough not in Moscow, Paris, or Brussels—but in Washington. For decades, the South Caucasus has been a flashpoint for regional competition, unresolved wars, and missed diplomatic opportunities. Now, with US reengagement, real peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan may finally be within reach. It is reasonable to assume that President Trump’s instinctive urge to cut deals—along with his desire to go down in history as an international peacemaker and statesman—drove his determination to lead efforts to end the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. The deal also gave him the chance to tie up a loose end from his first administration. Despite Trump’s frequent claims that no new wars started under his watch, the 2020 Second Karabakh War erupted in the final year of his presidency. His administration made no meaningful effort to bring it to a close, creating a vacuum that Moscow filled by brokering a ceasefire agreement—one it ultimately proved unable to enforce. But President Trump could also recognize an opportunity when presented with one. In many ways, he was pushing at an open door. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan understand the importance of normalization and peace. Both are also exhausted by Moscow’s failed mediation efforts and its waning regional clout. The White House would be mistaken in assuming that since the headlines have passed, the cameras have stopped recording, and the signing ceremony is complete, the job is finished. Three big challenges are still on the horizon: Questions remain about Prime Minister Pashinyan’s political stability, which could be undermined, especially in the lead-up to Armenia’s parliamentary elections next June, as hardline nationalists and Moscow-backed groups inside Armenia challenge his authority and the legitimacy of the peace process. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan should expect Russia and Iran to try to discredit the peace process by launching disinformation campaigns. Many questions remain unanswered about how the regional transport links envisioned in the peace agreement—including the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP)—will be funded and financed. Without a resolution of these challenges, President Trump might lose interest in the peace initiative. Only his direct oversight can ensure its success.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, and Peace
Political Geography:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and United States of America

3. Azerbaijan Gets Bolder: How It Won Back Its lands, the Lesssons for Others, and What Comes Next for the South Caucasus

Author:
Zaur Shiriyev
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency has accelerated the fraying of the old world order, causing headaches for many states. But a confident Azerbaijan seems less affected by such uncertainty - for now. It sees itself as outside rival camps: neither east nor west, neither global north nor south. It is not strongly beholden to any major power and, for the first time, it is territorially complete. Azerbaijan, flush from its military victory in 2023, when it won back its long-cherished Nagorno-Karabakh region from Armenian separatists, now wields power not just in the South Caucasus, but in the wider region, including Central Asia. It got here slowly, by carefully pursuing balancing acts for three decades, primarily to avoid full alignment with either the West or its former colonial master, Russia – unlike most of its neighbors. Staying aloof, Baku sought to maximize support from major powers in its conflict with Armenia as they competed to woo it into their spheres of influence. Taking back former Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent territories that the Armenians had long occupied was Azerbaijan’s overriding national security objective since independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.1 The return of the last of this territory — in a one-day offensive in September 2023— healed the wound that had festered as the core of a long-standing conflict with Armenia, and boosted Azerbaijan’s regional position. It has also triggered a search for a post-Karabakh identity for Azerbaijan, which is redefining its foreign-policy priorities and national identity. The conflict’s resolution has also sparked debate about what lessons, if any, other countries might learn from Azerbaijan’s strategy. However, some misguided assumptions – such as the belief that Baku had won Russia’s covert approval for its military actions – have led to flawed conclusions. In Georgia, for example, some politicians argue that the lesson from the Karabakh war is that an agreement over breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia could be reached if Tbilisi pursues closer ties with the Kremlin.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Territorial Disputes, Armed Conflict, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

4. Polarization of the Post-Soviet region - A Harbor for Local Autocrats

Author:
Nino Imedashvili
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the challenging regional environment, marked by intense interactions and high tensions between Russia and the West, has often been leveraged by local autocrats to consolidate their power. By instrumentalizing the fragile security landscape and perceived foreign threats in the post-Soviet space, they have effectively obscured the decline of democratic governance. Since the 2000s, the international environment for post-Soviet countries has become increasingly polarized. As Russia has sought to assert its dominance in the region and strengthen its economic standing, the West has intensified its engagement with local nations. However, the European Union’s limited influence in the region has allowed the local authoritarian regimes to survive for many years. This was made particularly evident in two significant events in the region that significantly increased the level of polarization, following which, local autocrats, with the support of Russia, were able to take steps to reinforce their power. The first was the successful color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine in 2003-2004, which sparked optimism for regional democratic development. The second was the full-scale attack by Russia on Ukraine in 2022, which dealt a devastating blow to those emerging hopes. This article aims to illustrate how certain countries in the region - specifically Armenia, Belarus, and Georgia – have leveraged regional polarization, with the support and in imitation of Russia, to reinforce their repressive governance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Polarization, Post-Soviet Space, Autocracy, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Eurasia, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, and Belarus

5. Armenian Foreign Policy in 2025: The Return of Geography

Author:
Benyamin Poghosyan
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Russia’s advances in Ukraine in 2024 and the first months of 2025, coupled with the new US administration’s decision to enter direct negotiations with Russia to end the war, have increased the likelihood that Russia, in the short- to mid-term, will expand its influence in the post-Soviet space, including the South Caucasus. The United States’ shifting focus from Europe to Asia–Pacific, diverging policy views between Washington and Brussels, and the socioeconomic challenges European Union member states face will likely diminish the role of the United States and the EU in the region. Meanwhile, ad hoc partnerships and minilateral groupings prioritizing regionalism prevail over larger, more formal multilateral coalitions. Armenia can only adapt its foreign policy in 2025 to the evolving regional geopolitical landscape and the looming risk of regional instability. The primary goals of Armenian foreign policy should be: ● Continuing negotiations with Azerbaijan and Turkey; ● Deepening cooperation with Georgia and Iran; ● Establishing a new modus operandi with Russia; ● Exploring the establishment of minilateral groupings1 ; ● Readjusting relations with the United States and the European Union while maintaining the positive momentum of recent years. This approach will allow Armenia to safeguard its sovereignty, navigate shifting power dynamics, and seize emerging opportunities while minimizing the risk of antagonizing regional and global powers.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, European Union, Regional Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Armenia

6. Armenia and Azerbaijan: Peace or Pause?

Author:
Marina Ohanjanyan
Publication Date:
09-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
At the White House in Washington, on August 8th, Armenia and Azerbaijan initialled a peace deal and signed an agreement on the establishment of the Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP): a transport link connecting Azerbaijan-proper with its exclave Nakhchivan through Armenian territory, which had been a contentious issue in the peace negotiations. While the imagery and potential positive consequences of this should not be underestimated, much is still unclear about what the agreements actually mean, including certain formulations and their interpretation as well as the question of how long the US commitment to the region will last. At the same time, the Washington summit represents an opening and a positive momentum for further development of not only the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process, but larger connectivity in South-Caucasus, and several capitals will have been watching the proceedings keenly. This paper first briefly discusses the agreements reached and some of the remaining questions surrounding them, and then analyses the attitudes and/or reactions of the US, Russia, Iran, Türkiye and the EU, which in some cases, will be crucial to the success or failure of the initiative.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Peace, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Eurasia, Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and United States of America

7. Armenia’s Changing Relationship With Russia

Author:
Marina Ohanjanyan
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Armenia is distancing itself from Russia after Moscow failed to support it in the conflict with Azerbaijan Armenia is diversifying its foreign policy toward the EU and US to reduce reliance on a single partner Armenia still depends on Russia—especially in trade, energy, and the economy—making it hard to make 'either-or' choices The EU can help Yerevan reduce its reliance on Russia by deepening cooperation in these areas Continued European backing for Armenia’s democratic development through incentives and conditionality is essential
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Economy, Trade, and Energy
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and Armenia

8. The Changing Face of the South Caucasus

Author:
Teona Giuashvili
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The impact of Russia’s war against Ukraine on the South Caucasus has been neither linear nor uniform. The war has ushered in a period of interregnum between the earlier regional order and one whose features are yet to emerge. It has shifted political dynamics within the three states of the South Caucasus and has affected the interests and positions of external actors, altering the regional balance of power. In all three countries in the region, the interregnum has amplified trends that predated the war: it consolidated Azerbaijan’s assertive foreign policy, reinforced Armenia’s striving for emancipation from Russia, and accelerated Georgia’s drift away from the West. While Türkiye took advantage of Russia’s distraction from the region and fostered its position in the South Caucasus, the shift in the status quo in the region has penalised Iran’s regional interests. Throughout the last three years, the South Caucasus has witnessed the receding influence of the US and the EU, and the expansion of China’s geoeconomic footprint.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Regional Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

9. Crossroads of Peace: Advancing Regional Integration and Global Trade Through Post-Conflict Cooperation

Author:
Gevorg Papoyan and Albert Hayrapetyan
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
This article examines the potential economic benefits of the Crossroads of Peace (CoP) initiative proposed by the Government of Armenia. To assess regional trade dynamics, three indicators were applied: the Export Similarity Index (ESI), the Trade Complementarity Index (TCI), and the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA). The findings reveal that the ESI between Armenia and its regional partners, Türkiye and Azerbaijan, is 0.25, indicating minimal competition in export markets. In contrast, the TCI score of 0.5 from the region to Armenia suggests a relatively higher degree of complementarity, highlighting stronger opportunities for regional exports to Armenia than vice versa. Furthermore, Armenia’s projected trade volume with Türkiye in 2024 is estimated at USD 787 million, underscoring the initiative’s potential to foster significant economic exchange.
Topic:
Exports, Trade, Regional Economy, Freedom of Movement, and Post-Conflict
Political Geography:
Turkey, Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

10. Trump-Brokered Azerbaijan-Armenia Peace Deal: Breakthrough or Another Geopolitical Conundrum?

Author:
Sanshiro Hosaka
Publication Date:
08-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
The footage of US President Donald Trump linking the hands of Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan during their summit at the White House surprised many observers. After more than three decades of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh—recaptured militarily by Azerbaijan in 2023—the two South Caucasus rivals appeared to be on the path to peace. The White House hailed the event as a “historic peace deal,” dubbing Trump the “President of Peace.”[1] Both leaders flattered Trump and even promised to jointly nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Notably, Russia—long accustomed to exploiting its mediator role in the South Caucasus to cement geopolitical influence—was effectively sidelined.[2] However, whether Trump’s peace deal proves to be a genuine milestone for regional peace and stability will depend on its implementation. Significant uncertainties remain, raising the risk of renewed geopolitical turmoil.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Treaties and Agreements, Geopolitics, Peace, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh