Search

Begin New Search Topic Territorial Disputes Political Geography Armenia

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Prospects for Resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Author:
Arkadiusz Legieć
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
As a result of the change of power in Armenia in 2018, the Armenian-Azerbaijani talks on the territorial and ethnic conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh have intensified. However, they have not yielded results because the authorities of both countries are under strong internal public pressure, limiting the possibility of compromise. Russia is using the conflict as an instrument of political influence towards both countries. Strengthening the involvement of French and U.S. diplomacy in the work of the Minsk Group and increasing its importance would limit Russia’s role as the main mediator in the conflict.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Ethnic Conflict, Territorial Disputes, and Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Central Asia, France, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and United States of America

36. Post-Soviet Tensions: What will 2018 Bring to Nagorno-Karabakh?

Author:
Konstatin Tasits
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
The spikes in violence and instability in Nagorno-Karabakh are far from over, however, experts believe that 2018 will be more stable for the region than 2016 and 2017. Are there any grounds for a diplomatic resolution of the long-standing conflict?
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Territorial Disputes, Negotiation, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

37. The Armenia – Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and New Threats to the International Security Architecture in the Modern Period: Challenges and Responses

Author:
Sadir Mammadov
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Nowa Polityka Wschodnia
Institution:
Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
Abstract:
In the paper, we present new threats and dangers in the present international arena and their impact on the system of international security. We analyze the causes and development of these issues the international law system, paying particular attention to the case of Armenian-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts. We also discuss possible solutions to these problems proposed by experts. Some of the most interesting issues we address in the paper include the increasing activity of ISIL, cybercrimes, Ukraine crisis, immigration flow to Europe in recent years. All these problems are viewed from the multicultural perspective. We also analyze the genesis of ethnic conflicts, and put forward some recommendations for resolving them. We discuss the factors that led to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, possible solutions to this problem, and a dangerous double standard policy. Terrorist threats, as well as “frozen” conflicts, resulted in the need for deepening interstate cooperation in the security sector.
Topic:
Security, Migration, Territorial Disputes, Ethnicity, Conflict, and UN Security Council
Political Geography:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh

38. Whither the South Caucasus?

Author:
Thomas de Waal
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
This paper is part of CTR's Working Paper Series: "Eastern Voices: Europe's East Faces an Unsettled West." Twenty five years after Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia became independent states, the South Caucasus remains a strategically sensitive region between Europe and Asia, Russia and the Middle East. It is still struggling with the legacy of the conflicts that broke out as the Soviet Union collapsed. Economic development lags behind its neighbors and unemployment and emigration are enduring problems.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, Territorial Disputes, Foreign Aid, Conflict, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eastern Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Syria, South Caucasus, and United States of America

39. The EU’s Niche in the South Caucasus: Old Partners, New Challenges

Author:
Daniel Khachatryan
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV)
Abstract:
Daniel Khachatryan is a Hrant Dink Foundation fellow at the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) within the framework of the Support to the Armenia-Turkey Normalisation Process Programme financed by the European Union. Khachatryan’s academic background includes studies at Yerevan State University, University of Oslo and Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. In this article, Khachatryan dwells upon the possible steps to be taken by the EU towars the South Caucasus in order to define its role in the region by focusing on the recent developments in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Daniel Khachatryan, Avrupa Birliği tarafından finanse edilen ve Hrant Dink Vakfı’nın yürütmekte olduğu “Ermenistan-Türkiye Normalleşme Süreci Destek Programı” kapsamında bursiyer olarak TESEV’de çalışmaktadır. Erivan Devlet Üniversitesi, Oslo Üniversitesi ve Tufts Üniversitesi’nde eğitimini tamamlamış olan Khachatryan bu makalesinde Azerbaycan, Ermenistan ve Gürcistan’daki gelişmelere odaklanarak Avrupa Birliği’nin Güney Kafkasya’daki yeri ve rolünü tanımlamak için atması gereken muhtemel adımlara ve mekanizmalara değinmektedir. Makale yalnızca İngilizce olarak yayınlanmıştır.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, European Union, and Economy
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and South Caucasus

40. Turkey and Armenia Post-Protocols: Back to Square One?

Author:
Diba Nigar Göksel
Publication Date:
10-2012
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV)
Abstract:
In her article “Turkey and Armenia Post –Protocols: Back to Square One?” Nigar Göksel provides the reader with a brief overview of the history of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia. The article endeavours to shed light on the ways in which “the protocol framework” tried to stimulate a high-level diplomatic normalisation process between the two countries and further examines why this process broke down. As a potentially tricky period approaches, more clarity and communication is needed to create a conducive environment to move forward in the future. Only then will stumbling blocks, like the Nagorno-Karbakh conflict, be solvable. Nigar Göksel makalesinde Türkiye ve Ermenistan arası diplomatik ilişkilerin kısa bir tarihçesini okurla paylaşırken, geliştirilen “protokol çerçevesi” ile iki ülke arası normalleşme sürecine ışık tutuyor. Göksel bu sürecin neden uzun soluklu olamadığını araştırırken; siyasi çıkmazın aşılabilmesi, ileriye dönük somut adımlar atılması ve bölgesel anlaşmazlıkların (Dağlık –Karabağ sorunu gibi) çözülebilmesi adına, gelecek dönemde ülkeler arası açık politikalar izlenmesi ve doğrudan iletişim kurulması gerekliliğine dikkat çekiyor.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Genocide, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Armenia