Caspian entanglement.

9 October 2015

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu.

On Wednesday, Russia said it had fired 26 missiles at 11 targets in north and north-west Syria. The missiles were fired from ships of Russia's Caspian Flotilla about 1,500km (930 miles) away. On Thursday, Russia reiterated that all the rockets hit their targets, despite the fact that American sources insist that four of the missiles fell on Iranian territory.

Russia's decision to throw its full military weight behind the government of Syrian President Basher al Assad has irritated western countries, as well as many Arab states who have in the past five years put in considerable effort to try to topple the Baathist regime in Damascus. Ostensibly Russia has intervened in Syria in order to attack the forces of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIL) which it sees as also being a long term threat to its own security. Fighters from the North Caucasus are reported to be among the most efficient of the ISIL warriors, and there is fear that they will soon return home to continue their jihad in the North Caucasus. However it became obvious from the very first day of the operation that the Russian objectives in Syria were far from limited to striking ISIL. Russia's neo-imperial ambitions have now reached the shores of the Mediterranean. The choice to use the Caspian Flotilla for the missile strikes is also not a coincidence. It connects the Caspian and the East Mediterranean theatres of operation in a most dramatic fashion. It sends a message to the countries in between that they should not stand in the way.

There are many reasons why the Caspian Region, the Black Sea Region, the East Mediterranean and the Gulf region can be seen as part of a larger super region. Indeed the economic potential of this super region, if it is able to develop peacefully,is enormous. The countries of the South Caucasus - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, are at the heart of this super region and can contribute much to it, and in turn benefit immensely. Unfortunately this super-region is riddled with conflicts, some like in Syria, very much alive, others like the Karabakh conflict simmering and ready to erupt. Entangling the Caspian with the conflict in Syria is the last thing the region needed. By doing so the Russian government has once more shown that it will stop at nothing in the process of achieving its neo-imperial ambitions. The incidents between Russian forces on Turkey's borders with Syria further add to the tensions in the region. NATO has taken these incidents very seriously and has made clear its commitment to Turkey as a long time ally and member of the alliance. NATO, which in the immediate aftermath of the end of the cold-war, had become a rather sleepy organisation, has already had to step-up significantly in the last two years following events in Ukraine. The situation on the south-east borders of the alliance now introduces a new sense of urgency.

Military solutions offer no long term way out, for the problems in Syria, in Nagorno-Karabakh nor elsewhere. Countries, be they global or regional powers, or small states, must come together in dialogue to address both the immediate challenges as well as the core issues that underpin them. The rule of law must return to international relations as the basis from which the current crises can start being addressed. The time for a piecemeal approach is over. While each situation has its own dynamics and specificities there are clearly bigger issues at play, with an impact way beyond the immediate location of the ongoing conflicts. In the same way that NATO has stepped-up its military role, other international organisations whose mandate it is to solve problems peacefully need to do likewise. As must the European Union on whose immediate borders conflicts are raging with increased consequences. Governments have a duty to help bring this about, but civil society needs also to break out of its complacency. We are in a period of grave danger for global peace. Locally, regionally and globally, the voices of reason need to be heard before it is too late.

source: This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu.

photo: The trajectory of the missiles fired from Russia's Caspian Flotilla at targets in Syria on Wednesday, 7 October 2015. (Image courtesy of the BBC).

Latest

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Dennis Sammut

Editor's choice

News

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996, Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe. But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides. Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)

Dennis Sammut

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)

Dennis Sammut

Caspian entanglement.

Latest

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Popular

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”