Political Geography: Armenia / Publication Year: within 10 Years and 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. 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

9. 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

10. Russia’s Influence and Disinformation Campaign in Armenia

Author:: David A. Grigorian
Publication Date:: 06-2024
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:: Often-overlooked developments in Armenia show how Western policy makers are failing to recognize and counteract the growing sophistication of Russia’s propaganda machine. There is much the West can do. Intelligence authorities can start sharing more information about Russia’s influence operations. We need media that can report with more knowledge from the region. Working more closely with the pro-Western opposition, Brussels and Washington, D.C. can help shape an agenda that is not just offering better conditions for Armenia but also leads to more credibility in a Western-oriented agenda. Finally, it is important for the West to acknowledge their own blunders over the settlements between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which led to continued ethnic cleansing.
Topic:: Propaganda, Disinformation, and Foreign Influence
Political Geography:: Russia and Armenia

11. Armenia’s Critical Economic Reliance on Russia: Can the West Eliminate It?

Author:: Orkhan Baghirov
Publication Date:: 01-2024
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: Lately one of the most discussed political issues related to the South Caucasus region is Armenia’s attempt to incline towards the West by trying to move away from Russia’s sphere of influence. This has been manifested both geopolitically and geoeconomically. However, Armenia’s potential strategic shift away from its centuries-old political alignment with Russia raises questions about the future of the overall relationship between the two countries. A key concern revolves around the challenges Armenia may face due to its significant economic dependence on Russia. For such a shift to occur successfully, Armenia would have to not only strengthen its political and security ties with the West, but also develop the ability to replace Russia with Western partners in key economic sectors. Thus, the primary objective of the essay is to assess the degree to which Armenia could economically substitute Russia with the West, determining the feasibility of this transition. To achieve this, we should identify the critical level of Armenia’s reliance on Russia across diverse economic sectors and assess the extent to which the West can mitigate this dependency in anything resembling a realistic timeframe, without, that is, critically endangering Armenia’s economic wellbeing.
Topic:: Economics, Geopolitics, Trade, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, and South Caucasus

12. Revitalizing the 3+3 Platform: A Formula for a New Regional Security Order?

Author:: Vasif Huseynov
Publication Date:: 01-2024
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: On 23 October 2023, the second meeting of the 3+3 Consultative Regional Platform took place in Tehran, Iran. This platform is built upon the idea of bringing together Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia ‘plus’ Iran, Russia, and Türkiye for regional cooperation had been introduced by the presidents of Azerbaijan and Türkiye after the Second Karabakh War. Georgia, owing to its ongoing territorial conflict with Russia, refused to participate in the platform, though its leaders signaled that they might reconsider this position in the future. The initiative, even in the 2+3 format (i.e., without Georgia), has faced several challenges, including Russia’s war in Ukraine and Iran’s mercurial policies in the region. The first meeting within this initiative (without Georgia’s participation) was held in Moscow on 10 December 2021 at the level of deputy foreign ministers. At that inaugural meeting, each side expressed optimism regarding the future of this framework. However, this optimism did not materialize for a long time. While Moscow and Tehran remained supportive of the 3+3 initiative, it mostly lost its relevance and importance for the other actors, including Azerbaijan. Despite repeated announcements by Russian and Iranian officials regarding preparations for the second meeting in this format, it took nearly two years for the meeting to actually occur. According to Russia’s leadership, the West was undermining this initiative
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Politics, and Regional Security
Political Geography:: Russia, Iran, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and South Caucasus

13. Karabakh and Azerbaijani Statecraf

Author:: Michael M. Gunter
Publication Date:: 01-2024
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: This brief article seeks to make two important and related points. The first is that the international law principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity hold that Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan, despite misleading arguments to the contrary about supposed Armenian rights of self-determination. The second provides a partial assessment of Heydar Aliyev’s legacy and how it relates to some of the policies pursued by his successor, Ilham Aliyev. Each will be examined in turn.
Topic:: International Law, Sovereignty, Territorial Disputes, and Self-Determination
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

14. The Aras Corridor: Azerbaijan's Rationale Behind the Deal with Iran

Author:: Rahim Rahimov
Publication Date:: 02-2024
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:: Since the 2020 Second Karabakh War, Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia and its subsequent push for the Zangezur Corridor, Baku, and Tehran have been embroiled in fierce waves of escalation. With the launch of construction works for the Aras Corridor as the purported replacement to the Zangezur Corridor, the two nations appear to have made a breakthrough, and a thaw can be seen in current bilateral relations. In lieu of Baku’s strong push for the Zangezur Corridor over the last three years, the change in direction triggers the immediate question as to why Azerbaijan agreed to the Aras Corridor deal with Tehran. In order to properly address this question, it is essential to distinguish Azerbaijan’s Zangezur Corridor project from its Zangezur discourse, which can otherwise lead to misunderstandings. The main reason for Baku’s concession to the Aras Corridor deal with Tehran and backtracking from the Zangezur Corridor is that Baku has achieved its objectives in the Zangezur discourse. Having achieved those objectives, the Zangezur Corridor alone, without the discourse, is of mere local importance to Azerbaijan. Yet the hype around it still persists, with the subsequent international reactions having made the topic somewhat toxic for Azerbaijan.
Topic:: Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, and Infrastructure
Political Geography:: Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Nagorno-Karabakh

15. Performing Diasporic Resistance: (Re)Claiming the Heritage Language

Author:: Shushan Karapetian
Publication Date:: 03-2024
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:: “All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory,” writes Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen.1 In the landscape of memory, language is the theater of war. Through language, we frame the narratives of our experiences and transmit those narratives for the historical record as individuals and collectives. The chronology and processes so profoundly articulated by Nguyen have merged in the recent decade such that combat on the physical battlefield does not necessarily precede the curation of narratives about the war. They now take place synchronously. Due to advances in digital media and communication technologies, the landscape, strategies, and potential combatants have outgrown geographic, physical, and temporal limitations. Civilians can now participate in military conflicts through digital and participatory warfare enabled by the hyperconnected battlefield of social media platforms. In parallel with actual fighting in combat zones and the official narratives of the states involved in war, new participatory modalities within a global digital battlefield are impacting the representation, perception, participa- tion, and memorialization of conflict. The mobilization of transnational human resources by diasporas can enlarge the scope of civilian participation in warfare, impacting war’s narration, cura- tion, and framing. In this current environment, language becomes the theater of war, not just within the post-combat landscape of memory, but also during combat—in the parallel digital battlefields of modern-day participatory warfare. It is, therefore, important to consider how language is viewed and used during war, particularly the heritage language of diasporan civilians. More specifically, we must assess the extent to which the heritage language is employed as both a symbolic and strategic tool in wartime transnational activism in processes through which diasporic identities are fashioned. In this essay, I examine the role of the Armenian language in the unprecedented transnational mobilization of Armenian communities across the globe during and after the 2020 Nagorno- Karabakh War.2 I argue that transnational actors (re)claimed the Armenian language as an act of resistance in the context of participatory warfare, which not only intensified the existing symbolic range of the Armenian language as a central identity marker, but also introduced a novel instrumental element for many Armenians.
Topic:: Diaspora, Language, Participation, Heritage, and Resistance
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Global Focus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

16. A "Frozen Conflict" Boils Over: Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and Future Implications

Author:: Walter Landgraf and Nareg Seferian
Publication Date:: 01-2024
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:: This report has two objectives: first, to present an account of the conflict with an emphasis on analytically useful categories and context up to the present, and second, to discuss local, regional, and global consequences of the latest developments of the dispute, including policy implications and recommendations.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Sovereignty, Territorial Disputes, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

17. Are Azerbaijan and Armenia Heading to Peace?

Author:: Anna Borshchevskaya
Publication Date:: 03-2024
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:: New regional and international factors are creating conditions conducive to ending their decades-long conflict, with potentially important consequences for Iran, the Ukraine war, and Turkey. Against the backdrop of the Gaza war, the escalation of Iran and its proxies across the Middle East, and Russia’s war in Ukraine, the South Caucasus is quietly undergoing a profound transformation. Armenia and Azerbaijan are slowly moving towards signing a peace treaty. If they do, this outcome would have profound implications for the South Caucasus and Russia, Europe, and Iran. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is both ethnic and territorial and has spun for over thirty years. Specifically, the dispute is over Nagorno-Karabakh (or Artsakh as Armenians call it), internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan but until recently controlled by a breakaway separatist ethnic Armenian regime backed by the Armenian government. This is the longest-running conflict in the post-Soviet space, one of several so-called “frozen conflicts” on Russia’s periphery. In the last several years, observers periodically declared that a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan was imminent, but it never materialised. However, there are several reasons why this time may be different.
Topic:: Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, Peacebuilding, and Frozen Conflict
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

18. Black sea security: Romania’s military modernization and Armenia’s foreign policy reorientation

Author:: Middle East Institute (MEI)
Publication Date:: 09-2024
Content Type:: Video
Institution:: Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has pushed the Black Sea region to the forefront of international attention and forced regional countries to overhaul their own security calculations. The countries of the extended Black Sea region are now undergoing some of the most profound shifts in their foreign, security, and defense policies in decades, with Romania and Armenia at the forefront of this phenomenon. Notably, the government of Romania, the United States’ staunchest regional ally, has increased its defense spending, pushed ahead with major defense acquisitions from the US, and is building out its strategic partnership with Washington; at the same time, it is looking to strengthen its domestic military industry while also expanding its security cooperation with neighboring Ukraine, Moldova, and Bulgaria. In Armenia, a long-time ally of Russia, the government is orchestrating the country’s foreign policy reorientation toward the West. But to achieve this, Yerevan must first overcome its deeply ingrained strategic dependencies on Russia and decades of regional isolation, both of which represent among the most significant challenges Yerevan has faced since independence. This panel discussion brings together two of this year’s Black Sea Program Title VIII research fellows to present their findings on the strategic challenges and opportunities facing Armenia and Romania in the context of Russia’s war of aggression. The fellowships are granted by the US State Department for the Middle East Institute’s Black Sea Program.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Regional Politics, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Armenia and Romania

19. Tehran’s Armenian weapons supply route

Author:: Alexander Grinberg
Publication Date:: 02-2024
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: Armenia is one of several routes used by Iran to smuggle arms to its regional proxies and clients. It also manufactures its own versions of Russian weapons that are used only by these groups and provides them with the knowledge to locally manufacture Iranian arms.
Topic:: Weapons, Proxy Groups, and Regional Security
Political Geography:: Iran, Middle East, and Armenia

20. Proposal for a Regional Emergency Action Partnership (REAP) for Peace in the South Caucasus

Author:: Anar Ahmadov, Rusif Huseynov, Tatul Manaseryan, Arman Martirosyan, and Niko Orell
Publication Date:: 12-2024
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:: Armenia and Azerbaijan, together with Georgia, are facing unprecedented challenges that arise from unfolding climate change and seismic risk in the South Caucasus. Placing considerable strain on economies, livelihoods, and government resources, these hazards can significantly worsen the complex geopolitical landscape and exacerbate unresolved political issues. The absence of structured and coordinated disaster response mechanisms can increase vulnerability and hamper effective crisis management, leading to avoidable loss of life, widespread suffering, and significant economic damage. We propose the establishment of a Regional Emergency Action Partnership (REAP) in the form of a coordinated binational disaster response system. This system could enable better preparation and facilitate effective responses to disasters that are likely to have an impact across borders, ultimately saving lives through joint efforts and resource mobilisation. Including Georgia would further strengthen such a crisis management system and solidify regional cooperation. Furthermore, this mechanism could help catalyse political rapprochement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Natural disasters and humanitarian crises can bring adversarial states together and unexpectedly foster collaboration. Greece and Türkiye have engaged in “earthquake diplomacy”, and despite the lack of diplomatic relations, Armenia and Türkiye briefly reopened their border to facilitate aid during the devastating 2023 Turkish earthquake (see Case Study 1 for more information). This rare example of earthquake diplomacy demonstrates how countries in seismically active regions can share common threats and opportunities for cooperation in their disaster responses. Similarly, Israel, Jordan, and Palestine have conducted joint disaster-response exercises involving 400 firefighters, medical personnel, and first responders, and the United States and Western states extended considerable support to the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the 1988 Armenian earthquake.
Topic:: Regional Cooperation, Natural Disasters, Partnerships, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and South Caucasus

21. Enhancing Prospects for Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan through Joint Climate Change and Energy Security Action

Author:: Anar Ahmadov, Agha Bayramov, Tatul Manaseryan, and Arman Martirosyan
Publication Date:: 11-2024
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:: This Policy Brief outlines practical ways in which environmental and energy cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan could foster regional stability and peace amid the looming impacts of climate change. Collaboration on shared resources could mitigate the negative impacts of cross-border environmental challenges while fostering mutual trust, thereby reducing the risk of future conflicts. Joint efforts to produce and transmit renewable and non-renewable energy resources could further promote regional stability by strengthening energy security and deepening economic interconnectivity. Joint action on climate change is becoming increasingly urgent in the South Caucasus, especially between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Both countries face serious economic, social, and political risks from climate impacts, including rising temperatures, reduced precipitation, desertification, extreme weather, water scarcity, and the spread of diseases. Armenia and Azerbaijan are also likely to face challenges affecting energy dependence and security, although in different ways. These challenges are likely to strain resources, heighten tensions, and increase the potential for conflict within and between these two nations. To mitigate climate change impacts, enhance energy security, and reduce the risk of conflict, cooperation is crucial, particularly as Armenia and Azerbaijan navigate a fragile post-conflict environment. The Policy Brief proposes five actionable policy options to promote environmental and energy cooperation. Their implementation would create platforms for government representatives, experts, and civil society members and organisations to jointly study, deliberate, and negotiate through technical and economic communication channels, fostering mutual understanding, confidence building, and reconciliation through shared problem solving. After discussing these policy options, the Policy Brief concludes by summarising the key take-aways from this important discussion.
Topic:: Civil Society, Climate Change, Regional Cooperation, and Energy Security
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

22. Prospects for the Normalisation of Turkish-Armenian Relations Improving

Author:: Aleksandra Maria Spancerska and Wojciech Wojtasiewicz
Publication Date:: 08-2024
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: The fifth round of negotiations between Türkiye and Armenia, held on 30 July, offers hope for an acceleration of the normalisation of their relations, including the opening of borders between the countries. However, the success of the negotiations depends on the settlement of Armenia’s relations with Azerbaijan. Such an agreement would unblock transport routes in the South Caucasus region, as well as increase the presence of the EU and Poland in the region.
Topic:: Bilateral Relations, Borders, Negotiation, Transportation, Normalization, and Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Political Geography:: Europe, Turkey, Poland, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

23. Spring 2024 edition of Contemporary Eurasia

Author:: Levon Hovsepyan
Publication Date:: 01-2024
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Contemporary Eurasia
Institution:: Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia
Abstract:: CONTENTS SUREN TADEVOSYAN BALANCING POWERS: AZERBAIJAN’S NATIONAL ROLE CONCEPTIONS AMIDST REGIONAL AND GLOBAL CHALLENGES ………………………….. 6 TIANPING CHE JAPAN JOINS AUKUS: MOTIVATIONS, PROGRESS, AND IMPACT ..………. 22 KNARIK SARGSYAN BETWEEN BLOCS AND BLOCKADES: QATAR’S DIPLOMATIC DILEMMA AND STRATEGIC MANEUVERS ……………………………….……………….. 44 GUO SONG THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION'S ATTEMPT TO RECONVENE THE GENEVA MIDDLE EAST PEACE CONFERENCE ………………….…………... 64 BOOK REVIEW: ARTYOM TONOYAN AHMED ZAHID SHAHAB AND ALI AKBAR. (2023). IRAN’S SOFT POWER IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN ……………………………….………………. 84
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Role Conceptions, AUKUS, Regional Security, Alliance, GCC, Diplomacy, Security, and Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Caucasus, Eurasia, Japan, Asia, United States of America, Qatar, Gulf Nations, Middle East, Palestine, and Israel

24. South Caucasus at the Crossroad of Peace and War

Author:: Farid Shafiyev
Publication Date:: 06-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
Institution:: Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)
Abstract:: The current issue of the Caucasus Strategic Perspectives (CSP) journal entitled “South Caucasus at the Crossroad of Peace and War” is dedicated to the different mediation activities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia’s internationally wrongful acts and foreign policy, Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, as well as the news initiatives in the South Caucasus region. The CSP’s new issue includes 7 articles. The CSP’s current authors analysed the EU’s and the US’s mediator roles to reconcile Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia’s international responsibility in relation to the formerly occupied territories of Azerbaijan, Russia-Armenia relations, the perspective of the Middle Corridor, and Iran-Armenia relations and its implications for Azerbaijan, etc.
Topic:: Nationalism, Territorial Disputes, European Union, Mediation, Peacebuilding, Regional Security, Russia-Ukraine War, and Ecocide
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and United States of America

25. THE IMPACT OF THE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT ON ARMENIA'S FOREIGN TRADE: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Author:: Diana Galoyan and Diana Matevosyan
Publication Date:: 07-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:: This article aimed to provide a quantitative assessment of the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on Armenia’s foreign trade. The research problem was to analyze how the conflict influenced Armenia’s export and import patterns regarding geographical directions and product structure. The objectives were to examine the changes in trade turnover and identify shifts in geographical trade directions and trade structure. The study employed various statistical analysis tools, including dynamic series indicators, structural analysis, time series modeling, trend and moving average approximation, and extrapolation. Through these methods, the study evaluated the effects of the conflict on Armenia’s foreign trade. The key results indicated a positive impact of the conflict on trade turnover, with increased trade activity in various geographical directions. Export diversification was also observed as a result of the conflict. Notably, re-export played a significant role in the unprecedented growth of Armenia’s trade turnover during this period. In conclusion, the findings suggest that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict had a discernible influence on Armenia’s foreign trade, leading to changes in trade patterns and increased trade activity. The study highlights the importance of the re-exports role in analyzing trade dynamics.
Topic:: Economy, Exports, Trade, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Eastern Europe and Armenia

26. The Eagle in the South Caucasus: Armenia Tests Alternative Geopolitical Waters

Author:: Walter Landgraf and Nareg Seferian
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:: The US-Armenia “Eagle Partner” joint military exercise from September 11–20 may signal the beginning of a shift in the foreign policy direction of Armenia, historically a close ally to Russia. Armenia has been growing frustrated at the lackluster response of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to its appeals for assistance in the deepening conflict with Azerbaijan. However, it would be difficult to imagine a wholesale change in the geopolitical orientation in Yerevan, given the strong military, economic, energy, and cultural ties between Armenia and Russia.
Topic:: Security, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Military, Regional Security, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, North America, South Caucasus, and United States of America

27. Fragile States Index 2023 – Annual Report

Author:: Nate Haken, Daniel Woodburn, Emily Sample, Wendy Wilson, and John Madden
Publication Date:: 06-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The Fund for Peace
Abstract:: The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index—and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built—makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:: War, Territorial Disputes, Fragile States, Political stability, Peace, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Africa, Europe, Sudan, Turkey, Ukraine, France, Armenia, Peru, Guyana, Global Focus, Burkina Faso, and Nagorno-Karabakh

28. The Next Surge of Conflict in the South Caucasus Is Still Preventable

Author:: Pavel Baev
Publication Date:: 10-2023
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:: The tragic exodus of the Armenian population from the Nagorno Karabakh region has closed a chapter in the long saga of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The disappearance of this self-proclaimed republic provides the opportunity to bring these bitter hostilities to an end; it takes, nevertheless, plenty of wishful political thinking to believe that a peace treaty could be swiftly negotiated. Mutual animosity is a profound, but not necessarily insurmountable obstacle. The greater problem is that it is hard to expect from Azerbaijan, ruled by the hereditary autocratic regime of President Ilham Aliyev, a magnanimity in victory. Pushing the defeated adversary further yet and maximizing the damage is much more in the nature of this regime, rendering the prevention of a new spasm of armed conflict an urgent task for all stakeholders in peace in the South Caucasus. The fate of Nagorno Karabakh was predetermined by the outcome of the 44-day long air-land battle in autumn 2020, in which the Armenian forward defense positions were breached, leading to the capture of Shusha, a key stronghold in the rugged theater of operations, by the Azeri forces. In that triumph, Aliyev showed strategic patience and accepted the Russian offer of a ceasefire. Much in the same way he calculated the right moment for starting the offensive operation, he assumed a total victory was inevitable in a matter of a few years, lessening the need to push forward with the military conquest of the whole enclave. The timeframe for the Russian peacekeeping operation was set on five years, but Russia’s aggression against Ukraine made it possible for Azerbaijan to force the closure of the postponed final act of geopolitical drama two years beforehand.
Topic:: Territorial Disputes, Displacement, Armed Conflict, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:: Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

29. Fact Sheet: Azerbaijan Moves to Retake Artsakh

Author:: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
Abstract:: On 19 and 20 September 2023, Azerbaijan conducted a military operation against Artsakh, a disputed territory also known as Nagorno-Karabakh,1 to dismantle the ethnic Armenian separatist enclave after nine months of blockading it. ACLED records over 570 political violence events along the Armenia-Artsakh-Azerbaijan Line of Contact from the start of the year through the days leading up to the offensive in mid-September. Even before the operation, the number of incidents had surpassed the total recorded for the entire previous year, which had already seen an increase of more than 70% compared to 2021. Clashes spiked in June after peace negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan stalled, remaining elevated ahead of the operation. In the months leading up to the offensive, increased fighting also led to a surge in the number of attacks on civilians, affecting mostly Artsakh farmers along the Line of Contact, with approximately 50 incidents reported between January and mid-September. With Artsakh’s defeat, the region’s population is now at risk of mass displacement and forced exodus.
Topic:: Political Violence, Territorial Disputes, Displacement, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:: Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

30. Thе Onе-Day War: Analyzing how Azеrbaijan's control of Karabakh is rеshaping gеopolitical equilibrium in thе South Caucasus

Author:: FARAS
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:: On Sеptеmbеr 19, 2023, Azеrbaijani forcеs launchеd a nеw military campaign against thе sеparatist rеgion of Nagorno-Karabakh, citing countеr-tеrrorism as a prеtеxt following thе dеaths of sеvеral of its soldiеrs in thе arеa. This action has raised concerns about thе potential for a rеnеwеd all-out war in thе South Caucasus. Azеrbaijan dеclarеd complеtе control ovеr thе rеgion just onе day after commеncing its military opеration. This dеvеlopmеnt has promptеd significant spеculation about its potential rеpеrcussions on thе gеopolitical balancе in thе rеgion.
Topic:: Territorial Disputes, Geopolitics, Conflict, and Regional Security
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

31. Can Armenia succeed in aligning with thе Wеst at the expense of Russia?

Author:: FARAS
Publication Date:: 11-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:: Armenia's foreign policy has taken a nеw direction following Azеrbaijan’s military attack on Armenian tеrritory on Sеptеmbеr 19, 2023. This attack resulted in Azerbaijan gaining complеtе control over thе disputеd Nagorno-Karabakh rеgion. As a result, Armеnia is now shifting its focus toward bolstеring tiеs with thе Wеst, potеntially jeopardizing its longstanding alliancе with Russia. This shift raises questions about Russia's futurе influеncе in the Caucasus region and Yеrеvan's ability to genuinely develop stronger rеlations with thе Wеst, possibly undеrcutting its tiеs with Russia in thе current gеopolitical landscapе.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Armed Conflict, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

32. The Russian Bloodletting Strategy in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War: From Success to Hubris

Author:: Spyridon N. Litsas
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:: Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:: The article focuses on the role of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in shaping the balance of power in the Lesser Caucasus as a prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It argues that Russia implemented a “bait and bleed” strategy to discipline Armenia for its pro-Western agenda. In addition, it focuses on Turkey’s role as a supportive apparatus for Azerbaijan’s military efforts against Armenia, evaluating the connection established between Moscow and Ankara. The Nagorno-Karabakh case marked a new manipulative Russian strategy to influence the balance of power in regions with geostrategic significance for the Kremlin.
Topic:: War, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Russia, Turkey, Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

33. De-colonising the Azerbaijan-Armenian Conflict: Breaking the Knot of Security and Dependence

Author:: Leila Alieva
Publication Date:: 11-2023
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:: The recent military operation in the Nagorno Karabakh area reflects a broader regional transformation. Its essence is in the second attempt (with the first one in Azerbaijan 30 years ago) of changing the security paradigm, this time in Armenia, leading to de-colonisation of relations in the region. The core of this change is liberation from the dependence on Russia’s almost two centuries old patronage, with Nagorno Karabakh conflict evolving as a tool of this dependence. With all the contradictions over the territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and difference in current political systems, the countries seem at last to arrive to the same conclusion of Russia and her control of the Karabakh elite being one of the obstacles to the peaceful relations, reforms and integration in the West. The power balance in the region, affected by such factors as Turkey’s greater involvement, distraction of the West, Russia’s increasing isolation, besides power change in Armenia, has also contributed to the “window of opportunity” for a change of paradigms. The role and influence of the EU and the US in this process, including in deterring potential military developments, will be dependent on the perception of them by the parties as non-partisan brokers, promotion of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan as independent subjects of international relations and consistency in support of democracy.
Topic:: International Relations, Security, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Mediation, and Interdependence
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

34. Legal and Political Mechanisms for Peacemaking: How These May Apply to the Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Process

Author:: Rodrigo Labardini
Publication Date:: 10-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: Despite various tensions that have been going on for some time, there have been a number of indications that a formal peace treaty may be signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the time ahead. This expectation became even sturdier after a significant increase in the number of meetings between the leaders of both countries, particularly during May and July 2023 (Brussels on 14 May, Moscow on 25 May, Chișinău on 1 June, and Brussels again on 15 July). These meetings were parallel to several others by the Deputy Prime Ministers and Foreign Affairs Ministers of both countries in diverse cities ranging from Brussels and Chișinău to Washington and Moscow and on the bilateral border. Statements and readouts from these meetings evidence a complex negotiation and an interrupted conversation mechanism with the EU’s facilitation, the U.S.’s support, and Russia’s mediation, including encouragement from Türkiye and, to some extent, France and Germany. The conversations have been very complicated. Not only do they deal with very thorny issues having to do regional security, the restoration of transport links between the two South Caucasus states (this would assist and further develop regional linkages in the Silk Road region and points beyond), the delimitation of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, the future of Karabakh’s ethnic-Armenian population and Azerbaijan’s internally displaced persons (IDPs), and a possible peace treaty. But, at least implicitly, they also deal with overcoming a protracted animosity—that is to say, the question of reconciliation.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Peacebuilding, and Regional Security
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

35. Armenia-Türkiye Relations: Attempts at Normalization

Author:: Könül Şahin
Publication Date:: 04-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: The Armenian and Turkish people have lived together for centuries in the same geography under various regime types and within various political forms. As countries, Armenia and Türkiye initially established diplomatic relations during the brief period of the first Armenian republic, which corresponded to the nascent years of the Republic of Türkiye. The absorption of Armenia into the Soviet Union put an end to this initial phase. It was only after Armenia regained its independence, in the context of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that conditions enabling the renewal of state-to-state ties were again established. This essay provides an account of this complicated journey, which has not yet reached its destination. It is intended to serve as an analytic contribution to ongoing efforts by Ankara and Yerevan to normalize bilateral relations within the framework of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, with which it remains politically preconditioned. This essay also carries an oftentimes implicit subtext—no less important in a certain sense—namely, the role played by Azerbaijan in general and Heydar Aliyev in particular (2023 marks the centenary of his birth and the vigenary of his death) in influencing the development of the Armenia-Türkiye relationship.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Normalization
Political Geography:: Turkey, Armenia, and South Caucasus

36. The Pashinyan Conundrum: Predictably Unpredictable, Consistently Inconsistent

Author:: Onnik Krikorian
Publication Date:: 04-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: Resolving the conflict in Karabakh requires a careful assessment of the roles of Russia, the EU, and the United States—states that have been involved as mediator, facilitator, and supporter of the peace process, respectively. Moscow believes two things: one, that the EU and the U.S. are hoping to edge Russia out of the region; and two, that there is a particular interest in removing the Russian peacekeeping contingent from Karabakh when its first and possibly last five-year term expires at the end of 2025. Ultimately, finding a solution to the conflict over Karabakh and the broader Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict will require a delicate balancing act among the various stakeholders involved, with a focus on promoting peace, stability, and security in the region. But in the absence of such an environment, there are concerns that competition between the actors involved could disrupt what progress has reportedly been made to date. Regardless of that rivalry, however, it should be remembered that any peace deal will be signed by the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders—and nobody else. But here, too, the situation is unclear. Despite Azerbaijan’s decisive victory over Armenia in the 2020 Karabakh war, a final peace treaty remains elusive nearly two and a half years after the trilateral Armenia-Azerbaijan-Russia ceasefire statement was announced on 10 November 2020.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, European Union, Conflict, and Regional Security
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, United States of America, and Nagorno-Karabakh

37. Sustainable Agriculture in Aghali: The Smart Village Concept in the Great Return to Karabakh

Author:: Nazrin Baghirova
Publication Date:: 01-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: On 31 December 2022, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev delivered his annual televised address on the occasion of the Day of Solidarity of World Azerbaijanis and the New Year. One of his formulations serves as the political background to this essay: “the Great Return program is being successfully implemented. […] I am confident that hundreds of thousands of former displaced persons will return to their homeland in the nearest future.” The Great Return is a flagship state project to repopulate and rejuvenate the Karabakh and East Zangezur Economic Regions, which were liberated by Azerbaijan in 2020 thanks to its victory in the Second Karabakh War. This essay will examine how repatriated farmers can optimally utilize agricultural lands and water, gain access to equipment, fertilizers, and pesticides, and examine how they can gain access to agricultural retail markets thanks to technological innovation. The essay will focus on a pilot project being implemented in one part of Azerbaijan’s liberated lands, namely the Zangilan district, which is one of the five districts that since the administrative reforms of July 2021 belongs the East Zangezur Economic Region. A milestone was achieved on 27 May 2022, when Aliyev participated in the official opening of a “smart village” project in the village of Aghali located in Zangilan (the quotation that serves as this essay’s epigraph was pronounced by the president on that occasion). This ceremony marked the completion of the first stage of a green resettlement project that included 200 fully constructed residential buildings, the introduction of public services (ASAN services, banks, post office, hospital), a “smart” secondary school with a capacity for 360 pupils, a “smart” kindergarten for 60 children, modern infrastructure, a high-speed internet connection, and the Gilmed sewing factory. The state has also allotted agricultural fields to each household. (In the next phase of the project, the state plans to further expand the village and build 150 more homes, including two- and three-story apartment buildings.)
Topic:: Agriculture, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Resettlement, and Sustainability
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

38. Defining Strategic Direction: Azerbaijan and the New Regional Geopolitical Configuration

Author:: Gulshan Pashayeva
Publication Date:: 01-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: More than two years have passed since the Second Karabakh War ended and the 10 November 2020 tripartite statement was signed. This essay presents the main priority areas for Azerbaijan of the initial phase of the post-conflict period for which the specific work is currently underway. It then examines the impact of the evolving regional geopolitical landscape to the ongoing normalization process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Topic:: Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Geopolitics, Conflict, and Normalization
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

39. The End of the Karabakh Conflict: Winners, Losers and New Expectations

Author:: Shota Utiashvili, Alex Petriashvili, Zurab Batiashvili, and Kakha Gogolashvili
Publication Date:: 12-2023
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:: In this publication, which includes four expert opinion papers, Rondeli Foundation fellows Shota Utiashvili, Alex Petriashvili, Zurab Batiashvili, and Kakha Gogolashvili analyze the geopolitical consequences of the end of the Karabakh conflict as well as the positions and expectations of two South Caucasian countries and several external actors.
Topic:: Territorial Disputes, Geopolitics, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh

40. Azerbaijan and Armenia: War Looms as Prospects for Negotiated Settlement Recede

Author:: Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Al Jazeera Center for Studies
Abstract:: Due to their failure to resolve disputes through negotiations, tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia have escalated, potentially to the point of a new war and even armed conflict between Iran and Turkey.
Topic:: Territorial Disputes, Negotiation, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:: Iran, Turkey, Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

41. The Lobbying Battle for Nagorno-Karabakh

Author:: Ben Freeman and Artin DerSimonian
Publication Date:: 12-2023
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: Long before Azerbaijani forces took the Nagorno-Karabakh region by force in September — displacing 100,000 Karabakh Armenians in an act that’s been described as ethnic cleansing — Azerbaijan and Armenia were waging a furious lobbying and influence battle in Washington. A closer examination of the countries’ respective attempts to influence U.S. policymakers before the Second and Third Nagorno-Karabakh Wars provides critical context for understanding Washington’s muted reaction to Azerbaijan’s recent aggression, seemingly at odds with the strong moral position U.S. officials have taken over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Azerbaijan has spent years pursuing a course of “caviar diplomacy” in our nation’s capital: using the authoritarian petrostates’ wealth to court officials, journalists, and scholars. Since 2015, the government of Azerbaijan has spent just over $7 million on lobbying and public relations firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Azerbaijan’s agents — like BGR Government Affairs — have conducted vigorous advocacy for Baku’s interests, including continued military assistance to Azerbaijan following the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020. Azerbaijan’s influence in the U.S. has also been aided considerably by Israel; Baku boasts powerful American-Israeli advocates like Ezra Friedlander as registered lobbyists for its interests. And this only constitutes what’s publicly known which, given Azerbaijan’s history, is likely just the tip of the iceberg. As the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) has painstakingly documented, the Azerbaijan government has a history of laundering its influence in Europe and the U.S. Azerbaijan’s extensive influence efforts in the U.S. stand in stark contrast to those of the Armenian interests which, until earlier this year, had not had a FARA registered lobbying or public relations firm on their payroll since 2020. Armenia has traditionally relied on its extensive diaspora to garner influence in the West, with repeated successes including a boycott of lobbying and PR firms working for Azerbaijan and President Biden’s recognition of the Armenian genocide. But as the negligible U.S. response to Azerbaijan’s use of military force in Nagorno-Karabakh shows, Washington’s perceived strategic interests continue to trump Armenians’ concerns. As the negligible U.S. response to Azerbaijan’s use of military force in Nagorno-Karabakh shows, Washington’s perceived strategic interests continue to trump Armenians’ concerns. U.S. officials’ overly-cautious and restrained reaction to the lightning offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh and the resulting mass exodus of Armenians from the region seems to reflect a stalemate in the lobbying and influence battle the two countries have been waging in the U.S; it may also be a product of the selective approach to human rights within U.S. foreign policy. No matter how one weighs the precise causes, the effect remains the same: a country used military might to reclaim its territory during a negotiating process, faced little consequences from the U.S., and seems emboldened to continue its aggression in an already volatile region. Time will tell the dangers of that decision.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Territorial Disputes, Lobbying, and Foreign Influence
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, United States of America, and Nagorno-Karabakh

42. Rethinking Resistance and Redress

Author:: Khatchig Mouradian and Michelle Allas Molina
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:: Dr. Khatchig Mouradian is a lecturer in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia University, and the Armenian and Georgian Area Specialist at the Library of Congress. Mouradian is the author of the award-winning book The Resistance Network: The Armenian Genocide and Humanitarianism in Ottoman Syria, 1915-1918. He is the co-editor of After the Ottomans: Genocide’s Long Shadow and Armenian Resilience and the forthcoming The I.B.Tauris Handbook of the Late Ottoman Empire: History and Legacy.
Topic:: Political Violence, History, Interview, Resistance, and Armenian Genocide
Political Geography:: Turkey, Caucasus, Middle East, and Armenia

43. Averting a New War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

Author:: International Crisis Group
Publication Date:: 01-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: International Crisis Group
Abstract:: The European Union is sending monitors to Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan, so as to lessen the danger of renewed fighting between the two countries over Nagorno-Karabakh and other issues. Brussels must give the mission the means and mandate it will need to succeed.
Topic:: Conflict Prevention, Territorial Disputes, and European Union
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

44. Balancing Natural Resources and Human and Social Capital: Pathways to Economic Diversification in Mongolia

Author:: Thorvaldur Gylfason and Jean-Pascal N. Nganou
Publication Date:: 09-2023
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:: Economic diversification has gained significant attention as a crucial factor for sustainable development worldwide. This paper addresses the risks associated with extreme specialisation and explores the potential benefits of economic diversification for Mongolia. By comparing Mongolia with its designated aspirational and structural peers, the paper aims to shed light on strategies that can foster economic and societal diversification in the country. Although Mongolia possesses favourable levels of human capital compared with its peers, its unusually high ratio of natural capital to human capital highlights the necessity of reducing reliance on natural resources and promoting human capital-intensive economic activities. The paper examines the implications of declining demand for Mongolia's key minerals, primarily coal, resulting from climate change concerns and evolving investor preferences towards sustainability, China's coal consumption reduction goals, and the enduring impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through this analysis, the paper offers insights into pathways for Mongolia to diversify its economy and enhance the well-being of its people by striking a balance between natural resources and human and social capital.
Topic:: Natural Resources, Governance, Democracy, Economic Growth, Human Capital, Diversification, Macroeconomics, Social Capital, Transition, and ASEAN
Political Geography:: Russia, China, Malaysia, Canada, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Armenia, Australia, Qatar, Chile, Peru, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, and Guyana

45. The Subsequent Return to Sochi Platform: New Opportunities for Sustainable Peace in the South Caucasus

Author:: Emin Mammadov
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Economic and Social Development (CESD)
Abstract:: Following the Russian-broken peace deal in November 10, 2020, in a way towards the sustainability of peace building process and peace situation in the South Caucasus along with the newly emerging politically and economically viable opportunities, the process has been drawing the attention of regional and international stakeholders with multidirectional views and varying degrees of contribution. In the aftermath of Prague meeting on the heels of recent escalations along the Armenia and Azerbaijani border, which revealed to be another willing step by the EU in this vein though French President’s biased approach has been reiterated, activism from the side of Russian media is being observed and the return to Sochi Platform with the mediation the President of the Russian Federation in the trilateral meeting with the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and with the Prime Minister of Republic of Armenia was held in the city of Sochi on October 31 which is considered of exceptional importance to ensure the implementation of the agreements of 9 November 2020, 11 January and 26 November 2021..
Topic:: Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Negotiation, Peace, Sustainability, and Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

46. Building Bridges over Caspian: South Caucasus-Central Asia Cooperation

Author:: Farid Shafiyev
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
Institution:: Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)
Abstract:: The current issue of the Caucasus Strategic Perspectives (CSP) journal entitled “Building Bridges over Caspian: South Caucasus-Central Asia Cooperation” is dedicated to the new paradigms for peacebuilding and geopolitical gaps, as well as possible confrontation and cooperation matrices in the South Caucasus region with focus on security, economic, humanitarian, political and geopolitical aspects. The CSP’s new issue includes 7 articles and 1 book review. The CSP’s current authors analysed the EU’s increasing mediation role towards the South Caucasus region, the importance of the Middle Corridor for transregional connectivity, the recent processes in the South Caucasus region in the light of ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Türkiye’s engagement, as well as the US strategic interests in this region, the possibility of the potential threats for South Caucasus, etc.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, European Union, Geopolitics, Strategic Interests, Peacebuilding, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Russia, Central Asia, Turkey, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Caspian Sea

47. EVALUATING THE ROLE OF TOURISM IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA AND OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION

Author:: Gayane Tovmasyan
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:: Tourism has a significant role in the economies of many countries. It creates jobs, brings money, promotes investments, decreases poverty, develops infrastructures, etc. Many research works try to evaluate the role of tourism development on the economy. The article evaluates the role of tourism development in the economy of Armenia and checks the Tourism-Led Growth Hypothesis (TLGH). With the help of statistical methods, the article evaluates the connections between tourism total expenses (visitor exports, domestic spending, government spending, and capital investment), the number of tourists and tourism total contribution to GDP, employment and other indicators. Besides, the correlation analysis between these indicators was done for the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union. The results show that the increase in tourism expenses and the number of tourists will increase GDP and employment. However, the change in tourism contribution to employment is not so high, which was explained by different reasons. The same is the case for other countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. The article results may be helpful for future studies, as well as for government agencies for evaluating tourism contribution to economic development and for elaborating tourism development policies.
Topic:: Development, Treaties and Agreements, Tourism, GDP, and Expenses
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and Armenia

48. Spring 2022 edition of Contemporary Eurasia

Author:: Vahram Ter-Matevosyan
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Contemporary Eurasia
Institution:: Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia
Abstract:: CONTENTS LILIT HARUTYUNYAN SYRIAN REFUGEES IN LEBANON: “NEW COMMUNITY” IN LEBANON’S CONFESSIONAL POLITICAL SYSTEM ............................................................... 5 GRIGOR VARDANYAN RESHUFFLINGS WITHIN SYRIAN SECURITY SYSTEM IN 2019: DETERMING POLITICAL MOTIVES AND OBJECTIVES ...............................20 VERONIKA TOROSYAN UNPACKING THE CONCEPT OF NATIONALISM WITHIN RUSSIAN EURASIANISM ...................................................................................................... 27 GOR HOVHANNISYAN TURKEY’S EXPANSION IN EASTERN AFRICA: THE CASE OF SOMALIA. ............................................................................................................. .44 WORKSHOP ARMENIA-TURKEY: LESSONS AND REALITIES………………………………………………………………………..58 CONFERENCE GULF ARAB COUNTRIES AND THE ARMENIAN COMMUNITIES: CURRENT TRENDS AND ISSUES………………………………………………………………………….…61
Topic:: Security, Bilateral Relations, Refugees, Domestic Politics, Syrian War, and Armenians
Political Geography:: Africa, Turkey, Caucasus, Middle East, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, and Gulf Nations

49. Trade Flows Between the European Union and the Eastern Partnership Countries: Dynamics and Prospects

Author:: Tomasz Grodzicki
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Nowa Polityka Wschodnia
Institution:: Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
Abstract:: The Eastern Partnership is a part of the European Neighbourhood Policy focusing on the EU’s Eastern neighbours. Its main objective is to deepen the political and economic integration of the EU with six countries in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The aim of this paper is to assess the development of EU trade relations with Eastern Partnership Countries from 2002 to 2021 and to indicate its prospects. The results show that the EU is in a group of main trading partners of the Eastern Partnership countries. The EU noticed both: a trade surplus with Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia (except in 2005); and a trade deficit with Azerbaijan. The volumes of imports and exports had increased over the years which also led to better economic integration with the EU. However, the future EU-Eastern Partnership trade characteristics and dynamics remain unknown due to the Russian invasion on Ukraine that caused troubles in trade flows in Ukraine and economic sanctions on Russia and Belarus.
Topic:: European Union, Partnerships, Exports, Trade, and Imports
Political Geography:: Europe, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Belarus

50. The Threat of New Wars in the Caucasus: A Good Case for U.S. Restraint

Author:: Anatol Lieven and Artin DerSimonian
Publication Date:: 12-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: The decline of Russian power due to military defeats in Ukraine risks leading to increased violence and instability in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The effects of this can already be seen in the flare–up of fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, inadequately checked by Russian peacekeepers. This shift in power creates a temptation for Washington to increase its involvement in the region in an effort to end Russian influence there. This temptation should be resisted. The United States has no vital national interest in this region — certainly not ones that are worth the risk of new wars. The conflicts in the southern Caucasus are deeply intractable, and have roots that long predate the Soviet collapse and indeed the Soviet Union itself. They were not created by Russia, and cannot be solved by the United States. Increased support for Georgia risks empowering a new attempt by Georgia to retake its lost territories by force, leading to another war with Russia, the outcome of which would be uncertain and highly dangerous. Increased support for Azerbaijan threatens Armenia and would create a fierce backlash in the Armenian–American community. Instead, the United States should continue to play a helpful but limited diplomatic role, aimed not at solving these disputes but at reducing tensions and preventing new eruptions of violence.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Instability
Political Geography:: Russia, Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, United States of America, and Nagorno-Karabakh

51. Acts of normality: The potential for Turkey-Armenia rapprochement

Author:: Asli Aydıntaşbaş
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:: The 2020 war between Azerbaijan and Armenia created an unexpected opportunity for Turkey and Armenia to normalise their relationship. For nearly a century, Turkey and Armenia have had almost no relationship and a closed border due to the legacy of the Armenian genocide, the cold war, and the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. But both countries now feel it is in their interest to normalise the relationship and open the border – not least to promote trade and to balance against Russian influence in the region. In recent months, Turkey and Armenia have increased the pace of this normalisation by opening air corridors, appointing special representatives, and initiating direct bilateral negotiations over the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and reopening the border. This process is a rare example of a positive sea change – and is likely to be one of the few bright spots in an increasingly unstable and competitive international order.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Normalization, and Rapprochement
Political Geography:: Turkey, Caucasus, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh

52. Prospects for Pax Caucasia? The 3+3 Regional Cooperation Initiative

Author:: Vasif Huseynov
Publication Date:: 04-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: The 3+3 format for regional cooperation is an initiative that was first proposed by the leaders of Turkey and Azerbaijan in the aftermath of the Second Karabakh War, building somewhat on an idea that originated in Iran during the war itself. This grouping covers the three countries of the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) plus the three most important countries neighboring this region (Russia, Turkey, and Iran). Thus in December 2020, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced the initiative at a joint press conference with his Azerbaijani counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, during his visit to Baku in which he reviewed the military parade marking Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia in the aforementioned war—a war that heralded the fundamental transformation of regional geopolitical and geo‑economic realities. On this occasion, Erdoğan called 3+3 a win‑win initiative for all actors in the region. Given its obvious potential to promote peace and security in the South Caucasus and facilitate the normalization of relations between former belligerents, some local experts believe that the 3+3 initiative could be instrumental for the emergence of Pax Caucasia. Four of the six countries immediately reacted positively to the initiative, with Armenia and Georgia expressing some reservation. While Armenia initially sounded skeptical, the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan eventually confirmed its participation in this format. For now, the only country that retains distance from the Pax Caucasia process is Georgia which, due to its ongoing territorial dispute with Russia, refuses to participate in this platform and proposes an alternative 3+2 format (the countries of the South Caucasus + the EU and the United States). Tbilisi has called its counterproposal the “Peaceful Neighborhood Initiative” but has taken no concrete action to set it in motion. Neither Aliyev nor Pashinyan have yet to publicly comment on the 3+2 format. Others have also remained silent. Hence, the likelihood it can prevail over the 3+3 framework in geopolitical substance is low, given that it excludes major active regional players like Russia and Turkey and substitutes them with two Western actors that are evidently less engaged in the region. The advent of the present phase of the conflict over Ukraine, which began on 24 February 2022, has also not increased the prospects of the Georgian idea being adopted, either.
Topic:: Security, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Iran, Turkey, Caucasus, Middle East, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

53. Armenia Adapts to New Postwar Realities

Author:: Richard Giragosian
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: To many observers, Armenia’s non‑violent change of government in 2018 represented an unusual victory of “people power.” In what became heralded as Armenia’s “Velvet Revolution,” Armenian opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan surprised many with the relative ease with which he displaced an entrenched elite and emerged as the new Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. After an important free and fair election in December 2018 cemented Pashinyan as Armenia’s new leader, the country ushered in a new period of democracy and reform. Endowed with a rare degree of legitimacy bolstered by popular support, the new democratically‑elected government promised a critical reassessment of a number of critical issues, ranging from Armenian relations with Russia to its policy regarding the conflict over Karabakh. Yet despite these important gains in democratic change and advances in reform, the Armenian leadership faced a looming challenge that was largely obscured by a legacy of arrogance and complacency. With a focus overwhelmingly devoted to domestic reform priorities, the Pashinyan government seemed increasingly ill‑prepared for the inescapable geopolitical and foreign policy demands that loomed large over Armenia. And through much of the period between mid‑2018 and early 2020, Armenia embarked on a foreign policy course characterized more by overconfidence than any realistic reassessment, marked by sporadic mistakes and missteps in its approach toward Russia but also Azerbaijan. Although somewhat explainable by a combination of inexperience and simplistic idealism, Armenia greatly overvalued the advantages of democracy and reform while also overstating its strategic significance. Against that backdrop, such diplomatic overconfidence only exacerbated a mounting crisis over Karabakh, as tensions increased and vulnerability intensified.
Topic:: Conflict, Violence, Peace, and Nonviolence
Political Geography:: Europe and Armenia

54. Armenian-Azerbaijani Relations in the Wake of the Second Karabakh War

Author:: Agil Rustamzade and Anar Valiyev
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: The Second Karabakh War was more than a war between two belligerents; essentially, it represented a war between two strategic paradigms: one belonging to the twenty‑first century and the other a relic of twentieth‑century military thinking. Azerbaijan’s achievement of air supremacy with the help of drones was not only one of the crucial factors that decided the outcome of that particular war; it will almost certainly contribute to the further development of the military art in armed conflicts of various scopes across various theaters in the time ahead. At the same time, referring to this war as a “drone war” does not reflect reality. In this, as in much else, impressionable journalists got it wrong: this could be a proper designation only if the drones had fought also on the ground instead of soldiers. Certainly, the use of drones was decisive; but the laurels of victory in this war do not belong solely to this contingent of the Azerbaijani military: the mobile groups of special forces were also decisive. Each played a critical part in the country’s military achievement. We begin with an examination of the area of hostilities and the respective dispositions of the parties to the conflict before getting into a discussion about some relevant aspects of Operation Iron Fist—the official designation used by Azerbaijan for the Second Karabakh War. We conclude with remarks of a more geopolitical nature.
Topic:: War, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Asia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

55. Terms, Conditions, Intersecting Interests Turkey and Regional Cooperation After the Second Karabakh War

Author:: Ayça Ergun
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: This essay should be understood as a series of reflections on the geopolitics of the South Caucasus in the aftermath of the Second Karabakh War and how this has provided Turkey with a great opportunity to revisit, redefine, and even consolidate its newfound role and mission in the region. It is predicated on the assessment that, starting in July 2020, Turkey became more proactive and involved in the region, which in turn laid the foundation for a game‑changing development; Turkey’s stature then grew even further in the wake of the 10 November 2020 tripartite statement between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia that ended the Second Karabakh War. Now Ankara is taking on a balancing role—if not quite a mediating one—in the region. The situation is not straightforward: the well‑consolidated empowerment of the Russian Federation in the wake of the war has ensured its continuing status as the main mediator in conflict resolution as well as open the possibility for it to become a genuine peacemaker. Turkey is considered the main balancing power to potentially check or restrain Russia’s dominant position, at least down the road. But for now, Russia can be considered as “being fully back” on the ground: its armed forces are present in each of the three South Caucasus states—by invitation or otherwise. This lends a certain pallor of instability to the newly achieved status quo, although this is not widely recognized, much less pronounced in Turkey and in Azerbaijan. It is thus too early to speak about full‑on regional integration, which will take time to bring about. Yet already today there is potential for the realization of regional cooperation. The ideas related to the latter are being discussed in various fora, yet the feasibility of the implementation of these ideas remains open to interpretation.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Hegemony, Geopolitics, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

56. The role of Nagorno-Karabakh in the shaping of Armenian and Azeri identity

Author:: Ricardo Juan Torres
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI)
Abstract:: The paper discusses the effect of the 19th century rebirth of Armenian nationalism in the Ottoman or Western Armenia and Russian or Eastern Armenia and that of Azeri nationalism in Russian Azerbaijan with its ramifications in Iran and Ottoman Turkey on the formation of Armenian and Azeri identity from the late 1800s to the present and the key role of Nagorno-Karabakh - called Artsakh by the Armenians - from the beginning of the 20th century, using the theories of Anthony D. Smith.
Topic:: Nationalism, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Identity
Political Geography:: Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

57. Multi-dimensional assessment of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Author:: Andrius Bivainis
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:: War Studies University
Abstract:: This article contains an assessment of the last war in the Southern Caucasus, referring to it as the second Nagorno–Karabakh war. The assessment is concentrated on the military capabilities built up prior to the major escalation of this war and operational features identified during the battles. The assessment uses analytic categories of processed information and initiatives that sovereign actors took during decision cycles and the conduct of military campaigns. Those analytic categories are named dimensions, with the strategic and military dimensions being the most important for this analysis. The key findings of this article suggest that additional dimensions could be used in researching the complex conditions of the war, which might have a continuous impact even outside the Southern Caucasus. The review of initiatives at the strategic dimension suggested that the built-up of two competing security policy fractions in the South Caucasus was an influential factor. The assessment of the military dimension of that war provided insights regarding the tactical choices of both adversaries. That assessment revealed some significant differences in how the campaign was conducted on both sides. Further complex tensions in the region are expected as national political decisions will drive strategic choices and drive the development of military capabilities. Given the fact that both countries were short of a consensus-based peace deal and Russia sent in peacekeeping forces, further developments in the political and strategic dimensions of this war saga should be expected.
Topic:: Science and Technology, War, Territorial Disputes, Quantitative, and Military
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

58. Turkey-Armenia Normalization: A Quest for Realism

Author:: Hay Ertan Cohen Yanarocak
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:: Ironically, the American recognition of the Armenian genocide removed an obstacle for Armenia and Turkey to move forward.
Topic:: Genocide, Human Rights, International Community, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:: Europe, Turkey, and Armenia

59. Armenia-Turkey Normalization Process: Opportunities and Barriers

Author:: Nino Chanadiri
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:: Armenia-Turkey relations have experienced numerous tensions over the decades associated with both the historic issues between the two nations and contemporary regional developments. Turkey’s refusal to recognize the mass killings of Armenians as a genocide1 in the Ottoman Empire during World War I has long been an important difficulty in bilateral relations. However, relations significantly worsened during the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the 1990s. As a response to Armenia’s capture of the territories surrounding NagornoKarabakh, Turkey closed the border with Armenia in 1993 in support of its ally Azerbaijan.2 The attempts to normalize relations did not have any fruitful outcome in the past decades which resulted in the two countries not having diplomatic or commercial relations for almost 30 years.
Topic:: International Relations, Territorial Disputes, Geopolitics, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Turkey and Armenia

60. Social Capital And Its Changes In Armenia: Challenges and Expectations

Author:: Albert Hayrapetyan and Liana Isayan
Publication Date:: 02-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:: Social capital was the Achilles’ heel of the economic competitiveness of Armenia. In the meantime, the country made significant progress in solidifying it since the Velvet Revolution. In this article, we tried to present and analyze those elements of social capital which demonstrated significant progress in post-revolutionary Armenia, as well as the changes thereof. For that purpose, we have formulated the following research questions: What factors led to this growth, and what factors still lag? What hidden challenges can be observed through factual indicators which probably resulted from the slight decrease in the updated scores? What changes can be expected from the turbulent world and in the post-war society? The applied methodology is quantitative. In particular, to answer the research questions we used index analysis, graphic analysis, and comparison, correlation analysis techniques, pared t-test of the mathematical-statistical significance of changes, and Principal Component Analysis. The results of the analysis showed that a significant increase in the level of social capital was recorded in post-revolutionary Armenia, which was mainly due to the progress in institutional trust. Nevertheless, some revealed anomalies and encountered challenges undermined the archived progress in the growth of trust. Therefore, we put forward several recommendations.
Topic:: Economics, Pandemic, Social Capital, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Europe and Armenia

61. Peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia: Who will economically win?

Author:: Emin Mammadov and Nigar Islamli
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Economic and Social Development (CESD)
Abstract:: Following the recent September escalations along the Azerbaijan and Armenian border, in a way towards achieving a sustainable peace deal and long-lasting security in the Caucasus, the quadrilateral meeting in pragmatic terms is deemed to play a significant role in this vein putting an end to hostilities. The President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia met in Prague on 6 October 2022 in the margins of the first European Political Community at the invitation of the President of the French Republic and the President of the European Council. Both sides reiterated their commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and the Alma Ata 1991 Declaration through which both recognize each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty which will act as a legal basis for the work of the border delimitation commissions.
Topic:: Security, Economics, Sovereignty, Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, and Borders
Political Geography:: Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

62. The Implications of the Third Trilateral Meeting in Brussels

Author:: Emin Mammadov
Publication Date:: 05-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Center for Economic and Social Development (CESD)
Abstract:: In a way towards a productive peace-building process, discussing the situation in South Caucasus and deepening economic cooperation between the EU and both countries, on May 23 President of the European Council Charles Michel hosted the President of Azerbaijan: Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia: Nikol Pashinyan. Following the 6 April meeting, which is called by the President Ilham Aliyev as a starting point in the normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the content of the recent meeting is once more characterized by its promising and necessary provisions that will serve the interests of Azerbaijan and development of the region more broadly.
Topic:: International Relations, Diplomacy, and European Union
Political Geography:: Europe, Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Brussels

63. Towards Sustainable Peace and Cooperation

Author:: Farid Shafiyev
Publication Date:: 06-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
Institution:: Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)
Abstract:: The current issue of the Caucasus Strategic Perspectives (CSP) journal entitled “Towards Sustainable Peace and Cooperation” is dedicated to the challenges and opportunities emerging in the South Caucasus region 2 years after the end of the 44-day war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020 with focus on security and political matters.
Topic:: International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, International Law, Treaties and Agreements, Peacekeeping, Military Affairs, Conflict, Vladimir Putin, Landmines, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:: Russia, Turkey, Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

64. The Escalation of Conflict Between Armenians and Azerbaijanis and the Problems of Peaceful Resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh War

Author:: Valeri Modebadze
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:: This article explains why it is so difficult to achieve peace in Nagorno-Karabakh and what factors prevent the peaceful resolution of the conflict. This conflict is very difficult to resolve because the conflicting parties have contradictory geopolitical interests and cannot achieve consensus during negotiations. We have to take into account Russia’s geopolitical interests in South Caucasus that Kremlin is interested in freezing this conflict to weaken both states, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and bring them back to Russia’s orbit. Moscow aims to establish firm control over South Caucasus which was viewed in the past as a ‘Russian backyard’. Russia still views South Caucasus as its zone of influence and tries to bring this region back into Russia’s orbit.
Topic:: Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

65. Iran Seeks to Reroute North-South Transport Corridor to Armenia, Away From Azerbaijan

Author:: Rahim Rahimov
Publication Date:: 02-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:: Iran emerged as a potential loser from the Russia-brokered trilateral truce accords that ended last autumn’s 44-day Second Karabakh War between Armenia and Azerbaijan (see EDM January 25). Therefore, Tehran is seeking ways to reposition itself into the new situation in line with its interests. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s five-country regional tour of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey, between January 25 and 28, clearly carried that mission (Tasnim News Agency, January 30). In particular, a top agenda item during this series of foreign visits was the proposal to reactivate a Soviet-era railway connecting Iran and Armenia via Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan exclave, which is wedged between them and Turkey (Twitter.com/JZarif, January 26).
Topic:: Diplomacy, Infrastructure, and Transportation
Political Geography:: Iran, Middle East, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

66. Russia’s Peacekeeping Operation in Nagorno-Karabakh: Goals and Challenges

Author:: Agnieszka Legucka
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: During a meeting in Moscow on 11 January, the representatives of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan discussed the situation after the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict. The peacekeeping force of the Russian Federation located in NK remains the guarantor of the cessation of the fighting. The practice of Russian conciliation so far differs from that of UN peacekeeping operations and strengthens Russia’s military position in the region. A challenge for it will be Turkey’s growing ambitions in the South Caucasus, as well as the lack of an agreed status for NK, which in the future may lead to the resumption of military operations in this territory.
Topic:: Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, United Nations, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:: Russia, Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

67. The Human Rights Situation in the Nagorno-karabakh Conflict: A Synopsis from the Un Protection Mechanisms/La situación de los derechos humanos en el conflicto de Nagorno-Karabaj. Una visión desde los mecanismos de protección de Naciones Unidas

Author:: Dorothy Estrada Tanck
Publication Date:: 10-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:: Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:: The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh has deep historical roots and has been exacerbated by the armed conflict of 2020. In this context, the human rights situation of those affected, and especially of women and girls, is often left invisible. Thus, this article analyses the conflict by referring to the general position of the UN and public international law and by widening the lens, in particular, on international human rights law and the UN mechanisms articulated for the protection of those rights. A distinct focus on the human rights of women and girls is presented, giving an account of the empirical situations they face, to then study them through the lens of human rights with a gender perspective, emphasizing what the main international protection mechanisms dedicated to the issue have expressed in this regard./El conflicto entre Armenia y Azerbaiyán sobre el Nagorno-Karabaj presenta hondas raíces históricas y se ha visto exacerbado por el conflicto armado de 2020. En este contexto, a menudo la situación de los derechos humanos de las personas afectadas y, en particular, los de las mujeres y niñas, queda invisibilizada. Así, este artículo analiza el conflicto refiriendo la postura general de la ONU y el Derecho Internacional Público y ampliando el lente, en especial, sobre el Derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y los mecanismos de Naciones Unidas articulados para su protección. Se presenta un enfoque específico sobre los derechos humanos de las mujeres y niñas, dando cuenta de las situaciones empíricas que enfrentan, para estudiarlas después bajo la mirada de los derechos humanos con una perspectiva de género, poniendo énfasis en lo que al respecto han manifestado los principales mecanismos de protección internacional dedicados al tema.
Topic:: Human Rights, United Nations, Women, Conflict, and Girls
Political Geography:: Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

68. The European Union and the Nagorno-Karabaj conflict/La Unión Europea y el Conflicto de Nagorno-Karabaj

Author:: Juan Jorge Piernas López
Publication Date:: 10-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:: Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:: The purpose of this article is to analyse the European Union's policies and activities in relation to the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. To this end, the article first describes the broad outline of the conflict. Secondly, the article analyzes the role of the European Union in the conflict and the policies and measures it proposes for its resolution within the framework of the Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership the Union maintains with the two States involved in the conflict, Finally, the article concludes with a series of considerations highlighting the role that the EU can play in the future in relation to this conflict./El presente artículo tiene por objeto analizar la actuación de la Unión Europea en relación con el conflicto entre Armenia y Azerbaiyán sobre Nagorno-Karabaj. Con este fin, el trabajo describe, en primer lugar, la evolución a grandes rasgos del conflicto. En segundo lugar, el artículo analiza el papel de la Unión Europea en el conflicto y las medidas que propone para contribuir a su resolución en el marco de la relación que la Unión mantiene con los dos Estados implicados en el mismo, con los que colabora a través de la Política de Vecindad y la Asociación Oriental. Finalmente, el trabajo presenta una serie de consideraciones a modo de conclusión en las que se destaca el papel que la Unión Europea puede desempeñar en el futuro en relación con este conflicto.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, European Union, Partnerships, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Europe, Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

69. Fall 2021 edition of Contemporary Eurasia

Author:: Vahram Ter–Matevosyan
Publication Date:: 09-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Contemporary Eurasia
Institution:: Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia
Abstract:: CONTENTS SONG YANHUA, SHEN XINGCHEN, WANG YINGXUE INVESTIGATION OF CHINESE STRATEGIES DURING THE PANDEMICS THROUGH THE LENSES OF MOZI AND GALTUNG ............... 5 DAVIT AGHABEKYAN TORN BETWEEN LOYALTY AND IDENTITY: THE CRIMEAN ARMENIANS IN THE POST-SOVIET ERA ........................... 24 KARINE MKHITARIAN PUBLICLY DECLARED POSITIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE KARABAKH PROCESS: PROBLEMS OF CONSISTENCY AND CONTINUITY ....................................................................................................... 43 LOUISA KHACHATRYAN MEDIA FRAMING AND OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA IN ARMENIA DURING THE 45-DAY ARTSAKH WAR ........................................................... 65 AUTHORS LIST .................................................................................................... 84 ANNEX .................................................................................................................. 85
Topic:: Foreign Policy, International Affairs, Military Affairs, Conflict, and Propaganda
Political Geography:: China, Europe, Eurasia, Asia, and Armenia

70. Armenia Cybersecurity Governance Assessment

Author:: Natalia Spinu
Publication Date:: 11-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:: This report is a two-factor analysis of cybersecurity, including the legislative framework and key national actors in cybersecurity. The first part of the report presents the main cybersecurity threats in the Republic of Armenia, and the needs arising from national security objectives. It describes the normative and legislative framework of Armenia, which covers the main aspects of information security ensuring a level of national security of the population and mentions the main objectives of the national cybersecurity strategy. This report also identifies the issues and challenges in the Armenian cybersecurity strategy and describes the main actors within the state responsible for the national action plan for cybersecurity. The last part reflects conclusions extracted following the study and elaboration of this report.
Topic:: Security, National Security, Governance, and Cybersecurity
Political Geography:: Europe and Armenia

71. The Future of the Eurasian Economic Union

Author:: Katia Glod
Publication Date:: 12-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Fletcher Security Review
Institution:: The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:: The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was established in 2015 and incorporates five countries of the former Soviet bloc—Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The declared goal of the project was to create a common market with 180 million consumers, coordinate economic policies, and eliminate non-tariff barriers. The idea behind the EAEU was to revive the economic ties that had broken down when the Soviet Union dissolved by facilitating better growth and more trade. Its member states claimed that the EAEU would emulate the European Union (EU) by adopting a system based on clear and transparent rules to promote free trade. The reality, however, is proving different. So far, the EAEU has failed to transform into a full-fledged economic union. Many outstanding issues require greater political will from the member states to work out common approaches and practices.
Topic:: Economics, Tariffs, Free Trade, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:: Russia, Eurasia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Belarus

72. Russian Crisis Behavior, Nagorno-Karabakh and Turkey?

Author:: Richard Giragosian, David G. Lewis, and Graeme P. Herd
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
Abstract:: On September 27, 2020, Azerbaijan initiated a war to retake the disputed Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven districts of Azerbaijan held by Armenian forces.1 The forty-four-day war resulted in a resounding defeat for the Armenian forces and only halted with the acceptance of a Russian-imposed agreement for a cessation of hostilities on November 9-10, 2020. Although the war was initially expected to unfold as a war of attrition with an eventual stalemate based on the advantages of terrain of the Armenian defenders, reality differed in terms of duration, intensity, and outcome.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

73. Appeasement and Autonomy: Armenian-Russian relations from revolution to war

Author:: Narek Sukiasyan
Publication Date:: 02-2021
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:: Armenia’s foreign policy and its role in the post-Soviet space are often characterised as ‘pro-Russian’. While such a description is partially true, it is overly simplistic. This Brief analysis the main trends and evolutions in Armenia’s Russia policy after the 2018 Velvet Revolution: how the changes have influenced Russia’s approach towards Armenia, how these dynamics affect Armenia’s autonomy and what the consequences of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are for Armenia’s regional security and alliances. After the revolution and up until the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, no substantial strategic changes were made to Armenian foreign policy. The leadership has avoided framing its external affairs in geopolitical ‘pro or against’ terms, promoting a ‘pro-Armenian’ policy that aims to maintain good relations in all directions and prioritises sovereignty as a foreign policy principle. Instead, the revolutionary ambitions of the new leadership have been directed towards domestic issues such as fighting corruption, reforming the judiciary and law enforcement bodies, improving the business environment and addressing social issues.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Economy, Conflict, Regional Integration, Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, and Appeasement
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Eurasia, and Armenia

74. Fragile States Index 2021 – Annual Report

Author:: Natalie Fiertz, Nate Haken, Patricia Taft, Emily Sample, and Wendy Wilson
Publication Date:: 05-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The Fund for Peace
Abstract:: The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index—and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built—makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:: Climate Change, Authoritarianism, Employment, Fragile States, Economy, Political stability, Conflict, Crisis Management, Peace, Resilience, COVID-19, Health Crisis, Early Warning, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:: Africa, Europe, Middle East, Tajikistan, Germany, Armenia, Central America, Spain, Lebanon, Timor-Leste, North America, Ethiopia, Southeast Asia, El Salvador, Global Focus, and United States of America

75. Mid-Year Update: 10 Conflicts to Worry About in 2021

Author:: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
Publication Date:: 08-2021
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)
Abstract:: In ACLED’s special report on 10 conflicts to worry about at the start of 2021, we identified a range of flashpoints and emerging crises where violent political disorder was likely to evolve or worsen over the course of the year: Ethiopia, India & Pakistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Belarus, Colombia, Armenia & Azerbaijan, Yemen, Mozambique, and the Sahel.1 Our mid-year update revisits these 10 cases, tracking key developments in political violence and protest activity during the first half of 2021 and analyzing trends to watch in the coming months.
Topic:: Political Violence, Conflict, Protests, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:: Pakistan, India, Yemen, Colombia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Haiti, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Belarus, Sahel, and Global Focus

76. Prospects for the Normalisation of Turkish-Armenian Relations

Author:: Arkadiusz Legieć and Karol Wasilewski
Publication Date:: 09-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:: The leaders of Turkey and Armenia announce an attempt to establish diplomatic relations and open borders. Success would be beneficial for both countries: it would strengthen Turkey's influence in the Caucasus, and it would enable Armenia to break the regional isolation. However, success remains unlikely due to nationalist sentiment in both countries and the possibility of Russia and Azerbaijan sabotaging the talks.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, and Normalization
Political Geography:: Turkey, Caucasus, Middle East, Armenia, and Mediterranean

77. Achieving Full Resolution to the Karabakh Conflict

Author:: Steven J. Klein
Publication Date:: 08-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: Azerbaijan’s decisive defeat of Armenia in the Second Karabakh War is certainly cause for optimism that any remaining issues between the two countries can be resolved through diplomacy rather than military might. After all, Azerbaijan managed to recover all the territories outside the Karabakh enclave captured and occupied by Armenia since the 1990s—as well as parts of the former Nagorno‑Karabakh Autonomous Oblast itself—in addition to forcing Armenia to withdraw all its troops from sovereign Azerbaijani territory. However, past indisputable successes in other conflicts indicate that Azerbaijan must be careful not to overestimate its capabilities to translate the recent military triumph into full resolution of the Nagorno‑ Karabakh conflict. While it is tempting to declare the conflict over and to talk strictly of post‑conflict construction and development, a handful of countries have painfully learned that such declarations can be premature. For instance, in August 1982 Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin predicted that the imminent defeat of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Lebanon portended 40 years of peace; and in May 2003 U.S. President George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” after ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Both of these declarations came back to haunt the respective countries that had believed they had put behind them the conflict at issue. The crucial element that both of the aforementioned leaders had missed was that they did not control completely the fate of the conflict they chose to treat as being resolved. In Israel’s case, the PLO relocated to Tunis, from where it was able to rebuild its power base and receive support from the Soviet Union, while Hezbollah—which didn’t even exist at the time of the defeat of the PLO in 1982—arose with the support of Iran to become a much more formidable and menacing force in southern Lebanon than the PLO had been. In the case of America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the resulting power vacuum allowed numerous external forces to enter the picture and disrupt the plans of the United States. Moreover, corruption and disorganization within the governments established with American help contributed to the deterioration of stability in the region.
Topic:: Conflict Resolution, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Europe, Asia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

78. Spotlight on Normalization Armenian-Azerbaijani Relations in the Wake of the Second Karabakh War

Author:: Gulshan Pashayeva
Publication Date:: 08-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: More than half a year has passed since the end of the Second Karabakh War and the signing of the Moscow‑brokered trilateral statement by the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, and the President of the Russian Federation on a complete ceasefire and a cessation of all hostilities in the zone of the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict. These developments have ended the almost 30‑year‑long illegal Armenian occupation, restoring Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. They have also contributed to the ultimate implementation of numerous decisions and resolutions adopted by various international organizations, including four resolutions of the UN Security Council (822, 853, 874, and 884) demanding the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied Azerbaijani territories. At the same time, a new political reality has emerged in the region as a result of the war. This has brought about at least seven implications:
Topic:: Conflict, Peace, Normalization, and Rivalry
Political Geography:: Europe, Asia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

79. Georgia After the Second Karabakh War

Author:: Mamuka Tsereteli
Publication Date:: 08-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: The outcome of the Second Karabakh War between Azerbaijan and Armenia significantly transformed the geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus, with implications for the wider Black Sea‑Caspian region. The unsettled political geography of the South Caucasus and the ethno‑political separatism fueled by external actors since the early 1990s left bleeding wounds on the bodies of the newly re‑emerged sovereign states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. These conflicts have determined the trajectory of the geopolitical developments of the region for the last 30 years, including on the foreign policy orientations of these new states. The conflicts in the South Caucasus were the primary challenge for transforming the strategic assets of this region into greater political and economic success. Three major conflict areas in the South Caucasus were former autonomous regions, created in the early Soviet period: Nagorno‑Karabakh, Abkhazia, and the Tskhinvali region, what was called South Ossetia. (Briefly: the latter term was introduced by the Soviets in the 1920s as a name for the newly created autonomous area in Georgia, populated by Ossetians alongside ethnic Georgians. The historic homeland of Ossetians is located to the north of the Greater Caucasus mountains. Following the Soviet tradition of planting ethno‑political time bombs, Ossetia proper—located in the Russian Federation—was named North Ossetia, while the Tskhinvali region of Georgia—with the Ossetian population at the time concentrated in the border areas with Russia—was named South Ossetia.) As of today, all three of these areas are self‑proclaimed independent states, are formally ruled by de facto governments, and saw fierce military confrontation in the early 1990s. In 2008, the Tskhinvali region became the battleground between Russian and Georgian forces. In 2020, Azerbaijan regained through a combination of military action and diplomatic brinksmanship all seven regions outside of Nagorno‑ Karabakh that had been occupied by Armenia, as well as one‑third of the former Nagorno‑Karabakh region. In the case of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, as of mid‑2021, these territories remain, in reality, governed by Russian occupational forces. The Russian military influence was inserted into Karabakh after the war that ended on November 10th, 2020, with Russian peacekeepers playing an increasing role in the governance of the region. In terms of geopolitical orientation, Armenia willingly allowed Russian troops onto its territory, seeing them as a security guarantee and deterrent against Azerbaijan. Georgia aligned itself with the Western powers, determined to join NATO and the EU. The conflicts on Georgian territory are seen as punishment from Russia for Georgia’s pro‑Western focus. As a result, there has been a heavy Russian military presence in the separatist areas of Georgia since the Russian invasion to Georgia in 2008.
Topic:: Security, Economics, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Europe, Asia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

80. From Struggle to Permanent Failure Why the Karabakh Attempt at Secession Failed

Author:: Azer Babayev
Publication Date:: 04-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: After 44 days of fighting, the Second Karabakh War came to an end on 10 November 2020 as a result of a Russian‑brokered ceasefire agreement. The most important questions here appear to be: what led to this dangerous military escalation, and what does it mean for the conflict, given that it seems to have now entered into a (new) political phase, again? In the declining Soviet Union, what was originally a status dispute over the autonomous Nagorno‑Karabakh region escalated into an international violent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the early 1990s. Following the end of a bloody war in 1994 (the First Karabakh War, 1992‑ 1994), a fragile situation around the conflict region took root: the “frozen conflict,” as it came to be known, lasted for nearly three decades and led to conditions of neither war nor peace. And during this period, it was feared that the longer the sides had to wait for a peace agreement to be reached, the more likely the conflict would re‑escalate and eventually erupt again into a hot war. As it turned out, this is exactly what happened: an all‑out six‑week war erupted again unexpectedly between the conflict parties in late September 2020, and, as a result, the Armenian side more or less capitulated. But first things first: in the First Karabakh War, Azerbaijan suffered a major defeat, ceding to Armenian forces not only the secessionist region itself but also seven surrounding territories. These other lands were, as a whole, twice the size of Nagorno‑ Karabakh itself and contained five times the old oblast’s population, the entirety of which was expelled by the time an armistice was signed in 1994. And that is why during this war the UN Security Council responded by passing four resolutions demanding the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied areas of Azerbaijan. However, the UN resolutions failed to have any effect. Since that time, no international protagonists felt a strong, compelling need to try to resolve the Nagorno‑ Karabakh conflict. In addition, all international actors dismissed the idea of “power mediation.” Moreover, although Russia as a key international actor is directly involved in all the conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union, its involvement in the Nagorno‑Karabakh dispute has been rather indirect: in the Karabakh case, Moscow has been both a critical and a questionable actor. On the one hand, the Kremlin has taken a central position in mediating a peaceful settlement to the conflict while, on the other hand, it has been delivering weapons to both sides. This last represents perhaps the most striking situation regarding the international dimension of the conflict. Russia is militarily allied with Armenia and has a military presence in the country. It has provided security guarantees to Yerevan, primarily through their shared membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which neutralized to a certain extent the potential effects of Russian arms being sold to financially strong Azerbaijan on a purely commercial basis.
Topic:: Security, War, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Europe, Asia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

81. Detachment by Default: the International Framework of the Karabakh Conflict

Author:: Thomas de Waal
Publication Date:: 04-2021
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI)
Abstract:: At the end of 1991, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict changed from being an internal conflict inside the Soviet Union to being an international dispute between the newly independent republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Topic:: International Relations, Sovereignty, Territorial Disputes, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:: Caucasus, Eastern Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

82. The Nagorny Karabakh Conflict in its Fourth Decade

Author:: Thomas de Waal
Publication Date:: 09-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
Abstract:: As the Nagorny Karabakh dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan enters its fourth decade, the 2020 war was a reminder that it remains the most dangerous conflict in the post-Soviet space. Azerbaijan completely reversed the losses it suffered in the conflict of the early 1990s, leaving the Armenian side defeated and humiliated. Russia inserted itself into the heart of the conflict zone for the first time, through the introduction of a peacekeeping force in Karabakh itself. But a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agreement that resolves the status of Nagorny Karabakh – the trigger for the conflict in 1988 – and a normalisation of relations between Baku and Yerevan looks as elusive as ever.
Topic:: Territorial Disputes, Peacekeeping, Conflict, and Post-Soviet Space
Political Geography:: Russia, Europe, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh

83. After the Karabakh War: Key Issues of Politics and Security

Author:: Aleksandre Kvakhadze
Publication Date:: 06-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:: As a result of the 40-day war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan established control over certain areas of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region and seven adjacent districts. In particular, after this war, the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan fully extends to the districts of Jabrail, Fizuli, Zangilan, Qubadli, Aghdam, and Kalbajar, while control over the Lachin district is only partial, excluding the highway connecting Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the so called Lachin corridor. Azerbaijan also controls most of the Hadrut and Shusha districts, and a small part of the Martuni and Askeran districts. According to the ceasefire agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani cargo will be able to enter Nakhchivan through the Armenian territory, while Armenia will be supplied from Russia via Azerbaijan. After the end of hostilities between the parties, the processes in the region continue to develop dynamically. Tensions have been mounting along the Armenian-Azerbaijani state border since May 2021, in particular in the vicinity of the Black Lake. In the following publication, we review the new political status-quo in the region and the Azerbaijani initiatives in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Topic:: Security, Politics, Treaties and Agreements, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

84. The Regional Security Dynamics of the South Caucasus After the 2020 Karabakh War

Author:: Benyamin Poghosyan
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:: The 2020 Karabakh war has significantly shifted the geopolitics of the South Caucasus. Armenia suffered a tough defeat while the non-recognized Republic of Artsakh (Republic of Nagorno Karabakh) lost almost 80 percent of its territories. Azerbaijan won a decisive victory and took not only territories outside of the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) but 30 percent of NKAR itself. The November 10 trilateral statement signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia not only stopped the war in Karabakh but ushered in a new era in regional geopolitics.1 The key features of the new status quo are the increased role of Russia and Turkey and the significant reduction of Western involvement. However, the South Caucasus is far away from stability and, most probably, volatility will continue. We will seek to analyze the main interests of the key regional and external players and what may play out in a short/mid-term perspective.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, War, Geopolitics, Political stability, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

85. Pax Caucasia: Prospects of Peace and Cooperation in South Caucasus

Author:: Farid Shafiyev
Publication Date:: 06-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
Institution:: Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)
Abstract:: The current issue of the Caucasus Strategic Perspectives (CSP) journal entitled “Pax Caucasia: Prospects of Peace and Cooperation in South Caucasus” is dedicated to the possible cooperation opportunities in the aftermath of latest 44-days war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the fall of 2020 with focus on different views from various countries. The CSP’s new issue includes 5 articles, 2 commentaries and 1 book review. In the framework of post-war cooperation situation, the CSP’s current authors analysed the economic difficulties of Armenia, Azerbaijan’s enhancing role in the region and existing geopolitical confrontations, performance of peacekeeping activities, as well as economic cooperation opportunities emerged in the post-war period.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Development, War, Peacekeeping, Geopolitics, Economy, Strategic Competition, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:: Russia, Eurasia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, United States of America, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Guam

86. Bridging the Elite-Grassroots Divide Among Anticorruption Activists

Author:: Abigail Bellows
Publication Date:: 01-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: The professionalization of the anticorruption field has produced a cadre of capital-based NGOs with the technical expertise to be formidable government watchdogs. But at what cost? Corruption-fueled political change is occurring at a historic rate—but is not necessarily producing the desired systemic reforms. There are many reasons for this, but one is the dramatic dissipation of public momentum after a transition. In countries like Armenia, the surge in civic participation that generated 2018’s Velvet Revolution largely evaporated after the new government assumed power. That sort of civic demobilization makes it difficult for government reformers, facing stubbornly entrenched interests, to enact a transformative agenda. The dynamics in Armenia reflect a trend across the anticorruption landscape, which is also echoed in other sectors. As the field has become more professionalized, anticorruption nongovernment organizations (NGOs) have developed the legal and technical expertise to serve as excellent counterparts/watchdogs for government. Yet this strength can also be a hurdle when it comes to building credibility with the everyday people they seek to represent. The result is a disconnect between elite and grassroots actors, which is problematic at multiple levels.
Topic:: Corruption, Political Activism, NGOs, and Political Movements
Political Geography:: Caucasus and Armenia

87. The Realist Victory in Nagorno-Karabakh

Author:: Maximilian Hess
Publication Date:: 11-2020
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:: Armenia’s accession to a Russian-mediated settlement with Azerbaijan over their long-running conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, known as Artsakh to Armenians, on November 10 marks a major, perhaps irreversible, loss for Yerevan. But it is not just Armenian forces who stand defeated. It also marks the trouncing of a liberal approach to the region and the supremacy of realist power politics.
Topic:: Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

88. Iran’s Longstanding Cooperation with Armenia: Domestic Azerbaijani Opposition May be Rising

Author:: Brenda Shaffer
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Iran’s stable northern boundary suddenly became a shared border with five states: land borders with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, and maritime borders with Kazakhstan and Russia. Tehran viewed this momentous change as a source of several new security challenges. Among these were maritime delimitation in the Caspian Sea and the establishment of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, two states that shared ethnic ties with large numbers of Iranian citizens.
Topic:: Regional Cooperation and Geopolitics
Political Geography:: Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

89. While You Were Sleeping: Winds of Change in the South Caucasus

Author:: Alper Coşkun
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Baku Dialogues
Institution:: ADA University
Abstract:: The flaring up of active combat in the Southern Caucasus in late September 2020 between Azerbaijan and Armenia initially seemed to catch many by surprise. An immediate upside of this turn of events was seen in the rekindled interest it generated in the three decade-old conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, which was often misleadingly labeled as being “frozen.” It also acted as a crude reminder of the need for consistency in advocating respect for a rulesbased international order.
Topic:: International Relations, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Geopolitics, and International Order
Political Geography:: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

90. Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia: Scope and Implications

Author:: Mamuka Tsereteli, Margarita Assenova, Alex Vatanka, and Rauf Mammadov
Publication Date:: 10-2020
Content Type:: Video
Institution:: Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:: The military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has entered its fourth week. The scope of the war has not been limited to the boundaries of the combat zone, resulting in human loss and destruction of civil infrastructure. The region’s important network of energy infrastructure, including oil and gas pipelines, are not immune to this latest round of fighting. The military confrontation is taking place in proximity to the critical energy infrastructure that connects the Caspian basin with the European markets. Can the fighting cause disruption to oil and gas flows to the West? What could potential disruption mean for global markets? Can the Southern Gas Corridor be prevented from being launched by the end of this year as had been planned? What are the interests of regional stakeholders such as Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Iran and others that are either energy exporters, consumers or transit nations for Caspian hydrocarbons. And finally, what are the interests of the United States in this conflict and its impact on the energy markets?
Topic:: Energy Policy, Territorial Disputes, Infrastructure, Conflict, and Exports
Political Geography:: Russia, Iran, Eurasia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and United States of America

91. Armenia and Azerbaijan: Between Failed Peace and War

Author:: Farid Shafiyev
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
Institution:: Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)
Abstract:: The current issue of the Caucasus Strategic Perspectives (CSP) journal entitled “Armenia and Azerbaijan: Between Failed Peace and War” is dedicated to the latest 44-days war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the NagornoKarabakh conflict zone with focus on different aspects of the conflict and the war. The CSP’s new issue includes 6 articles, 7 commentaries and 2 book reviews. In the framework of Armenia-Azerbaijan confrontation, the CSP’s current authors analysed the role of ideology, western media coverage, economic issues, illegal activities, multilateral diplomacy, international reaction, as well as humanitarian and geopolitical issues.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Economics, War, Geopolitics, Media, Multilateralism, Ideology, Humanitarian Crisis, Armed Conflict, and Legal Sector
Political Geography:: Armenia and Azerbaijan

92. Guidebook: Direction: An Efficient State

Author:: Gvantsa Ichkiti, Hasmik Grigoryan, Agnieszka Kulesa, Salome Kandelaki, and Stanislav Bieliei
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for Social and Economic Research - CASE
Abstract:: The Polish Decentralisation Guidebook aims at presenting in a synthetic way the experience of Poland regarding the re-introduction of local government and the decentralisation process since 1989. Its main goal is to provide representatives of central and regional authorities, experts, and representatives of opinion-forming circles in Armenia and Georgia with relevant information and knowledge. The idea of the authors of this Guidebook was to facilitate mutual learning between the countries, the exchange of good practices, and lessons learned. The territorial division of Armenia was established in 1995. Now the country has two levels of administrative division – regions and communities – and the local self-government is exercised only on the level of communities. In the case of Georgia, administrative reform aimed at introducing local government started in 1997. Currently, self-government in Georgia is exercised on just one level – in municipalities (including self-governing cities and self-governing communities). Poland’s experience, in which local government units are established on all three levels of territorial division, might be useful to Armenia and Georgia, if they wish to further reform their territorial administration and pursue decentralisation. This Guidebook is comprised of four main parts. The first part is devoted to the presentation of the Polish experience in five selected areas: Empowerment of local communities Financing of local government units Providing public services Absorption of external funds by local governments Crisis responses The second part is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of needs and main blocking points in decentralisation in Armenia, while the third one concentrates on Georgia. Both of them are structured around the five above-listed areas. The last but very most important section of this Guidebook provides a set of recommendations for Armenia and Georgia based on the Polish experience in introducing local government and decentralisation. The country-specific sections of this Guidebook were prepared mainly on the basis of the results of desk research. This included reviewing the existing literature, relevant state strategies and action plans as well as reports developed by local and international organisations. Key legal acts were also reviewed. In addition, interviews with representatives of local municipalities and other stakeholders were carried out in Armenia and Georgia. This Guidebook was developed as part of the project called ‘Direction: an efficient state. Polish experiences of decentralisation and modernisation, lessons learned for Armenia and Georgia’ co-funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. It is the joint work of three partner institutions: CASE – Center for Social and Economic Research based in Warsaw, the Tbilisi-based Georgian Institute of Politics (GIP), and the Analytical Centre on Globalization and Regional Cooperation (ACGRC) from Yerevan.
Topic:: Demographics, Labor Issues, Governance, Economic Growth, Social Policy, Trade, and Decentralization
Political Geography:: Eastern Europe, Poland, and Armenia

93. Veiled Counter-Balancing: The Peacekeeping ‘Arrangement’ Between Turkey and Russia in Karabakh

Author:: Can Kasapoglu
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:: In the wake of Azerbaijan’s successful offensive against the dug-in Armenian forces in Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani districts, the defense ministers of Turkey and Russia, General (ret.) Hulusi Akar and General Sergei Shoigu, respectively, met on November 11 and penned a memorandum of understanding to broker the ceasefire process in the war-torn region. According to the deal, Ankara and Moscow have, in principle, agreed to establish a joint peace-monitoring headquarters. The Russian foreign policy community has been extremely uneasy to see the Turkish Armed Forces suddenly operating in the South Caucasus, once considered Moscow’s undisputed hinterland (Milliyet, December 3).
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Peacekeeping, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Russia, Turkey, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh

94. The Impact of the EAEU-Iran Preferential Trade Agreement

Author:: Amat Adarov and Mahdi Ghodsi
Publication Date:: 05-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:: The preferential trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and Iran on mutual trade entered into force in October 2019. In this report we estimate its expected impact at aggregate and sectoral levels using the gravity model of trade based on the global sample of bilateral trade flows at the HS 6-digit level. The analysis suggests that the implementation of the agreement will boost mutual trade for both trading partners, with relatively greater gains expected for the EAEU’s exports to Iran. On aggregate, the total gains in mutual trade are estimated to reach almost USD 46 million, with exports from the EAEU to Iran expected to increase by 9.7%, compared with a rise in exports from Iran to the EAEU of up to 4%. The difference in the impact will also be significant across the five EAEU countries as well as across sectors, with the major export gains expected to accrue in the chemicals and agri-food sectors, especially trade in miscellaneous fruits and vegetables, as well as in the textile, polymer production and metals sectors.
Topic:: Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Global Political Economy, Exports, and Trade
Political Geography:: Iran, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Belarus

95. Preventing a Bloody Harvest on the Armenia-Azerbaijan State Border

Author:: International Crisis Group
Publication Date:: 07-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: International Crisis Group
Abstract:: What’s new? Deadly July 2020 clashes between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces left dozens dead, civilians among them, and forced villagers to flee their homes on the Armenia-Azerbaijan state border. Shooting across the trenches along the border is more frequent today than anywhere else on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict’s front lines. Why does it matter? Efforts by Baku and Yerevan, including through limited diplomacy, a communication channel set up in 2018 and an agreement between the two sides to safeguard farmers, have largely failed to create conditions that would deter people from leaving border areas. Violence there also risks permanently damaging wider peace efforts. What should be done? The two sides should use the communication channel to warn each other about planned engineering works or other activities that might be misconstrued and lead to escalation. They should begin talks on limited cooperation to allow farmers to harvest crops, repair water networks and clear mines.
Topic:: Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Violence, and Peace
Political Geography:: Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

96. Russia’s Stony Path in the South Caucasus

Author:: Philip Remler
Publication Date:: 10-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: As the battle between Armenia and Azerbaijan heats up, Russia struggles to contend with a vastly more complicated landscape in the South Caucasus. Since shortly after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia’s aims and policies in the South Caucasus have been constant, but its capabilities to project power and influence have fluctuated. Russia’s engagement with the entire Caucasus region is best characterized as a tide. Its power and influence began to ebb at the start of the Karabakh conflict—with the February 1988 massacre of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumqayit being the key galvanizing event.2 After that, the tide receded rapidly, leaving even Russian possessions in the North Caucasus without effective central control. The First Chechen War marked low tide, which only began to rise with the Second Chechen War, beginning in 1999. Until about 2004, Russia was too weak and internally divided to project power and influence in the wider Caucasus region in a meaningful way. To be sure, Russian influence was never gone completely, even during the lowest ebb of the tide. Russia still marshaled greater resources than the new states of the Caucasus could muster, and it threw its weight around. But in the 1990s, Russia did not have a unified governing apparatus, but rather a mass of competing clans among which regional actors could maneuver. For example, after the Soviet collapse, Moscow left the Russian military units in the Caucasus to their own devices. Those units served as mercenaries, arms suppliers, and logistics providers to both sides in the Karabakh conflict. It took a decade for Moscow to reassert its so-called power vertical in the Caucasus, symbolized by President Vladimir Putin’s success in 2004 in finally ousting chief of the general staff Anatoliy Kvashnin.3 Russia’s assertiveness in the region grew steadily thereafter, with sharp upticks after the 2008 war with Georgia and Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, History, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Elites, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and South Caucasus

97. Fall 2020 edition of Contemporary Eurasia

Author:: Vahram Ter–Matevosyan
Publication Date:: 09-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Contemporary Eurasia
Institution:: Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia
Abstract:: CONTENTS HERMINE HOVHANNISYAN RAPPROCHEMENT BETWEEN SAUDI ARABIA AND ISRAEL IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE BALANCE OF POWER THEORY ..................... AVETIK HARUTYUNYAN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING ACTORS IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY: A LEGAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... ELYA AGHAJANYAN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT VS. CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS: UNDERSTANDING THE AZERBAIJANI APPROACH ................................................................................. TATUL MANASERYAN CONTEMPORARY ISSUES RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY IN THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION ........................................................... AUTHORS LIST ........................................................................................ ANNEX .......................................................................................................
Topic:: Conflict Resolution, Environment, International Security, Crisis Management, Peace, Economic Cooperation, Decision-Making, and Power
Political Geography:: Eurasia, Turkey, Israel, Armenia, and Saudi Arabia

98. Spring 2020 edition of Contemporary Eurasia

Author:: Vahram Ter–Matevosyan
Publication Date:: 03-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Contemporary Eurasia
Institution:: Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia
Abstract:: CONTENTS LILIT HARUTYUNYAN THE NEW IMAGE OF THE BUSINESS ELITE IN LEBANESE POLITICS: RAFIK AND SAAD HARIRI, NAJIB MIKATI AND ISSAM FARES .......................................................................................... 4 YEVA HARUTYUNYAN JAPAN’S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STRATEGY IN CENTRAL ASIA ........................................................................................................ 25 LILIT MAYILYAN UNDERSTANDING THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF TURKISHAZERBAIJANI RELATIONS: “ONE NATION, TWO STATES?” ...... 39 ASTGHIK HAYRAPETYAN MANIFESTATIONS OF NEOCONSERVATISM IN US MIDDLE EAST POLICY DURING THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH (2001-2009) ............................................................................ 68 AUTHORS LIST .................................................................................... 87 ANNEX ................................................................................................... 88
Topic:: Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Business, Economic Cooperation, and Neoconservatism
Political Geography:: Japan, Central Asia, Eurasia, Turkey, Armenia, and Lebanon

99. Truth, Accountability, and Asset Recovery: How Transitional Justice Can Fight Corruption

Author:: Ruben Carranza
Publication Date:: 08-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Abstract:: On March 2 and 3, 2020, two weeks before the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a COVID-19 global pandemic, transitional justice and anti-corruption policymakers, experts, and activists from the Gambia, Kenya, South Africa and Armenia met with their counterparts in Tunisia for a two-day conference entitled, “Truth, Accountability and Asset Recovery: How Transitional Justice Can Fight Corruption,” organized by ICTJ with the support of Tunisia’s National Anti-Corruption Commission (INLUCC) and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. This diverse group of leaders came together to share solutions to a common problem: How can countries emerging from dictatorship, war, or political transitions hold corrupt ex-rulers accountable, recover their ill-gotten assets, and ensure that those harmed the most by human rights violations and large-scale corruption can achieve justice, obtain reparations, and overcome marginalization? For many countries pursuing transitional justice, including those represented by participants in the conference, the health and economic impact of the pandemic has made it more urgent to find and design solutions that advance accountability for both human rights violations and corruption. In Kenya, for example, citizens questioned the government’s use of $12 million in COVID-19-related aid from the World Bank, “amid reports that the lockdown intended to curb the spread of the virus had worsened poverty, even forcing a mother to cook stones to make her eight children believe she was preparing food for them.” In Tunisia, INLUCC “identified 11 instances of suspected corruption and conflicts of interest” related to a government deal to acquire millions of facemasks. At the conference, participants brought up the role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in enabling corruption during dictatorship or in facilitating state capture through privatization. Ninety-seven human rights and anti-corruption groups have jointly reminded the IMF, which has offered loans to pandemic-hit countries even as it continues to set austerity as a condition, that “transparency and accountability are key to making sure the money the IMF is disbursing actually goes to protecting lives and livelihoods.” This report gives an overview of the conference and its five panel discussions. It presents the thematic questions posed in each panel and summarizes the panelists’ statements and the comments and questions from moderators, other panelists, and participants in the audience. By design, the premise of the conference was clear: The practice by mainly global South countries of including accountability for corruption in their transitional justice processes has settled the debate over whether accountability for corruption should be part of transitional justice. In 2008, the Kenya Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission began investigating land-grabbing, large-scale corruption, and violations of economic and social rights. Soon after the Arab Spring in 2011-2012, Tunisia took the most significant steps when it established the Truth and Dignity Commission (TDC) with a mandate that covered violent political repression as well as corruption under former President Ben Ali. In its recently released final report, the commission examines the extent of the corruption and how the development policies and austerity measures imposed by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF enabled it. In 2016, the post-dictatorship government in the Gambia created a truth commission to examine human rights violations as well as a separate commission of inquiry to investigate ex-dictator Yahya Jammeh’s corruption and identify his ill-gotten wealth. The latter commission is now considering using part of those assets to fund reparations. Although corruption was excluded from the mandate of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, activists in 2017 created the People’s Tribunal on Economic Crime that linked the continuity of post-apartheid corruption to the failure to address it in earlier transitional justice processes. In 2018, the South African government then created the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture to investigate specific economic crimes during and after apartheid. After the 2018 revolution in Armenia that ended a decade of authoritarian rule in the post-Soviet state, the new government embarked on prosecutions for corruption and human rights violations and is now considering a truth commission that would examine specific cases of corruption and human rights violations since 1991. These processes informed the conference, and the panelists who were directly involved in them discussed the challenges, successes, and lessons learned. This report’s original intent was to highlight the most important lessons from these experiences and promote South-South exchanges on transitional justice and accountability for corruption. However, the unprecedented global pandemic during which the conference took place has given it another equally relevant purpose. As ICTJ pointed out in a recent special report on COVID-19, “The pandemic is bringing to the surface underlying inequalities, including the unequal access to health care.” With this in mind, the author hopes this report will also offer policymakers practical approaches to transitional justice that can help address those underlying inequalities, such as measures aimed at improving access to health care for the most vulnerable, and initiatives to use recovered ill-gotten assets to fund reparations for victims.
Topic:: Corruption, Reform, Criminal Justice, Institutions, Reparations, COVID-19, and Truth and Reconciliation
Political Geography:: Kenya, Europe, Armenia, North Africa, Tunisia, Gambia, and Africa

100. Armenia's Foreign Policy: Where values meet constraints

Author:: Alexander Iskandaryan
Publication Date:: 08-2020
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI)
Abstract:: The official foreign policy doctrine of Armenia is called "complementarism"; the idea at the core of this approach is that various foreign policy dimensions can and should complement each other and need not be perceived as mutually exclusive.
Topic:: International Relations, Foreign Policy, Politics, and Complementarism
Political Geography:: Russia, Caucasus, and Armenia

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Refine your search

Topic

Political Geography

Content Type

Journal

Publishing Institution

Author

Publication Year

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS