Opinion: the Russia-Ukraine war shifts the security structure of the South Caucasus

As the first anniversary of the full-scale war in Ukraine approaches, it is evident that international relations across the globe and the balance of power in the surrounding region have been impacted by the fallout of this war. Today we observe a growing bifurcation of the world between two camps which might lead to devastating consequences for humanity.

While the origins of this crisis predate and transcend the war in Ukraine, this war has notably escalated the confrontational nature of ongoing international tensions. The implications of this process can be observed also in the South Caucasus, the region that used to be traditionally seen by Moscow and some others as part of Russia’s sphere of influence.

Russia seeks to protect its influence in the region against rival powers

Since the full-scale war in Ukraine started one year ago, Russia has made various efforts to safeguard its predominance in the South Caucasus which had been boosted with the deployment of a peacekeeping mission to the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan following the Second Karabakh War in 2020. With a military foothold on the territories of each of the regional countries, Russia is a formidable power in the South Caucasus and cannot be easily ousted from this position. But the fallout of the Russia-Ukraine war, coupled with the consequences of the Second Karabakh War which increased Türkiye’s influence in the region, has pushed Russia to take measures against the threats to its dominance. 

On the one hand, partly due to a potential reaction from Moscow, Georgia became more vigilant in its foreign policy, careful not to antagonize Russia. The consequences of this policy are manifested in Tbilisi’s refusal to join sanctions on Russia, a deterioration of relations between Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the EU’s hesitation to grant Georgia candidate status. On the other hand, Russia took measures to ensure the extension of its peacekeeping mission in Karabakh beyond 2025.

Towards this end, Moscow averts the complete settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes by undermining the talks on Karabakh’s integration to Azerbaijan. The appointment of Russian oligarch of Armenian origin Ruben Vardanyan as the “state minister” of the separatist regime has served this intention and indeed significantly damaged the peace process.

The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process transforms into another theater of the Russia-West confrontation

Another consequence of the Russia-Ukraine war is noticed in the EU’s growing engagement with the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. Russia has opposed Brussels’ mediation in these talks from the outset characterizing this as Brussels’ hijack of the peace process and its attempt to play a geopolitical game. However, the two tracks of the peace process were, until recently, held more or less concurrently as the Kremlin largely endorsed the agreements reached in the EU-mediated track of negotiations.

This changed after the news about the deployment of the EU’s monitoring mission to Armenian territory along the borders with Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Yerevan refused to deploy a similar mission of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) within which Armenia is a military ally of Russia. The Russian leaders, evoking the fate of Ukraine and Yugoslavia, unequivocally warn the Armenian leadership that this policy direction might end disastrously for Armenia. 

Iran rushes to fill the vacuum created by the decline of Russian influence

Another external actor that tries to boost its influence in the South Caucasus following the decline in Russian influence is Iran. For Tehran, the developments ensuing the Second Karabakh and Russia-Ukraine wars pose various threats to Iran’s national security. Azerbaijan’s alignment with Türkiye and Israel, the talks on the opening of Zangazur corridor, the deployment of the EU monitoring mission to Armenia, etc. are all seen as adversarial developments in Tehran. In this context, Iran sees Armenia as its major partner in the South Caucasus and seeks to deepen bilateral economic and military ties to form a joint resistance against Azerbaijan and its allies. 

The countries of the South Caucasus need to remain cautious and vigilant against geopolitical risks and threats

The South Caucasus is a region that is afflicted by many flashpoints with a potential to erupt into a military escalation and violent hostilities. The alignment of the regional countries with different and often conflicting external powers further aggravates the situation and makes the region vulnerable to conflicts and confrontations amongst these external actors. Therefore, the current trend of political developments is dangerous and needs to be cautiously handled by the regional countries.

In this context, a balanced approach or multilateralism, a strategy that has been upheld by Azerbaijan for the significant part of its post-Soviet independence, promises to be useful for all three countries to effectively navigate these turbulent times if replicated by Armenia and Georgia as well. At least for now it looks possible to pursue this strategy and keep the extension of geopolitical hostilities at bay. 

source: This op-ed was prepared for commonspace.eu by Dr Vasif Huseynov, Head of Department at the Centre of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Centre) and Adjunct Lecturer at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan.
photo: AFP
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

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).
Editor's choice
News
King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King Charles has described the transatlantic slave trade as a "shameful chapter of history" that filled him with "profound sorrow" as he opened a summit of Commonwealth leaders in the Caribbean. He said the trade in enslaved persons "still casts a shadow" over the association of nations. There have been calls from some for the UK to make a formal apology for its historic role in the slave trade ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) in Antigua and Barbuda, but there was not one in the King's address. Prime Minister Andy Burnham, also at the summit, has said that he is open to Britain issuing a formal apology but has ruled out financial reparations. While there was no direct apology, the King did offer some contrition - and there was also an acknowledgement that he had personally learnt more about the legacy of the slave trade. He said: "The transatlantic trade in enslaved persons still casts a shadow over these islands and other members of our Commonwealth. "As I have said before, that shameful chapter of history is one that fills my heart with horror and my soul with the most profound personal sorrow." (click image to read more).

Popular

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

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

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)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

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

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)