If there is a contradiction, it is the Russian peacekeepers. As Eurasia has shown in the past three years, Moscow has not resolved conflicts; it has created them for its own benefit. However, last year’s conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Karabakh region ended with a ceasefire facilitated by the Kremlin, which placed 4,000 so-called peacekeepers in the central South Caucasus. In fact, this is only part of Moscow’s great revisionist strategy.
Now, a military arc extends to the entire post-Soviet space. In Europe, Ukraine’s Donbass region continues to be the victim of Russian military aggression, while the fate of Belarus further north seems to be gradually annexed.
In the Middle East, President Vladimir Putin continues to support the brutal Assad regime. At the same time, the Central Asian Republic of Tajikistan has one of Russia’s most important foreign bases. After the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban took over, reinforcements were sent to the border with Afghanistan.
In the South Caucasus, Russia, although supposed to protect peace, finds itself in the middle of Europe’s energy diversification strategy. Europe’s excessive dependence on Kremlin fuel has undermined its foreign policy. Although many EU member states see it as a national security threat, the recently completed Nord Stream II from Russia to Germany will only deepen this dependence.
This is why Azerbaijan is becoming more and more important as an alternative energy source. In December last year, a brand-new pipeline began to transport natural gas from Baku to southern Europe. Now, coincidentally, the Russian army is at a critical moment that should have weakened Moscow’s influence in Europe. This should be a serious concern for European and American policymakers.
The question is how quickly Russia’s presence will normalize. Broadly speaking, Russia was a supporter of Armenia in the war last year. Yerevan already relies heavily on Moscow military and economically. Russia has more and more military bases in Armenia, and it also supplies most of its weapons. It is also a member of every Russian-led integration project in Eurasia, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union. But the legalization of Russia’s excessive expansion has been the work of a large and active Armenian lobby.
Former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (Zbigniew Brzezinski) once described it as One of the three largest foreign lobbying groups in the U.S.In 2019, before the war, they helped protect Armenia US$60 million in foreign aid from Washington, An increase of 40% over the previous year. During most of the American political arena, they actively contributed to the lives of citizens, maintaining the vitality of the Armenian free cause under Soviet rule, just as the Lithuanian diaspora did for the motherland.
Paradoxically, they are now viewing the Russian peacekeeping force as a necessary guarantee for peace in Karabakh. Prior to last year’s conflict, neither the United States nor France, who have served as co-chairs of the OSCE’s Minsk group that has been responsible for resolving disputes since the 1990s, would not accept unaccompanied Russian troops in Karabakh. Now that they have been accepted, few people raise their eyebrows.
In addition, Armenia lobbied members of Congress to take an unfeasible position to push the peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia into the future. A classic example is the plea of California Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the influential House Intelligence Committee. Schiff led the Congress to call for the recognition of the independence of the so-called “Arzakh Republic”-the Armenian name for the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan that it occupied from 1994 to 2020.
Even de jure Yerevan does not recognize the so-called “Arzakh Republic” because it violates international law. This will be and will remain unacceptable for Azerbaijan, thus hindering any efforts to finally end the conflict. But the frozen conflict suits Moscow and allows it to maintain its peacekeepers on the ground indefinitely.
This kind of uncompromising lobbying should come from overseas diasporas, which may not be surprising. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan dates back to independence from the Soviet Union in the 1990s. With the victory and occupation of Armenia in the 1990s, isolation appeared on two fronts: Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey closed the border with Armenia, of which Armenia accounted for more than 80%. At the same time, the so-called “Artsakh” brought huge costs to the Armenian government’s budget; given its illegal status, no one else would invest in the region.
Or, the resolution of the conflict will greatly benefit the Armenian economy. Due to the Karabakh problem, it has missed the regional energy and logistics infrastructure. Therefore, the infeasible position advocated by the Armenian lobby will leave Armenia alone and helpless: they have not been affected by the economic turmoil of the past 30 years, so they can make radical demands without incurring any costs.
On the contrary, any step towards permanent peace must begin with the reality that the land reclaimed by Azerbaijan is its sovereign territory. And Armenia, if you listen less to the militants among the American diaspora and their lobbyists, it is more likely to ensure a more prosperous future.
Taras Kuzio, Professor of Political Science, Mohyla College, Kyiv National University
