Nagorno-Karabakh: War games on a chessboard turned real?

After some disquiet, a new escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh began on Tuesday, Sep 19 when Baku launched “counter-terrorism measures of a local nature,” citing an alleged Armenian military build-up in the disputed region.
However, Armenia denied that it had a troop presence, and accused Baku of starting “another large-scale aggression against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry, in a series of statements, said it was Armenia which was posing a threat to regional stability by abetting separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh.
“Armenia pursues one goal: to sustain separatism in the territory of Azerbaijan through all possible ideological, political, military, financial and other means,” the Azeri Foreign Ministry said.
On the surface, it really looked like it’s Azerbaijan that was instigating this fresh wave of escalation. But there is more to this than meets the eyes with such a conclusion.
In the first place this escalation took place in the midst of a joint military training exercise between Armenia and the US which was to end on Sep 20.
The 10-day “Eagle Partner” exercise involves 85 US and 175 Armenian soldiers and is designed to prepare the Armenians to take part in international peacekeeping missions. It is taking place at two training grounds near the capital Yerevan.
According to the Armenian defence ministry, “the purpose of the exercise is to increase the level of interoperability of the unit participating in international peacekeeping missions within the framework of peacekeeping operations, and to exchange best practices in control and tactical communication.”
This is innocuous enough. But the pertinent question to ask is when the situation in this region is already very volatile, why up the ante by having a joint military drill there?
This alone, right or wrong, will make Azerbaijan definitely feel worried and nervous by such a “provocation”, even though it was a small scale military drill.
And to worsen matters, Russia was irked by this military drill as well, as it rightfully regards itself as the prime security guarantor in the region, of which it is an integral part.
In contrast, the US is thousands of miles away.
Both the US and Armenia should have the foresight to know that this would destabilise the region. In hindsight, it has already destabilised the region when the current conflagration took place amid the military drill.

But on the other side of the argument, Armenia hosts a Russian military base and relies almost entirely on Russia for defence supplies, so are the Azeris and the Russians overreacting?
This is where an understanding of the historical context of the conflict between Baku and Yerevan, and the big picture of US’ intention on the Caucasus will throw some lights on the issue.
Actually, the “sabre-rattling” had already started months earlier when on May 22, Armenian prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan said there is a very real possibility of Armenia leaving the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO).
Established in 1992, the CSTO currently includes Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – all former republics of the Soviet Union.
“I wouldn’t say that this issue is off the agenda,” Pashinyan told reporters. “I cannot rule out that Armenia may de jure withdraw from the CSTO or freeze its membership.”
He added that this might happen only if Yerevan officially establishes the CSTO has abandoned Armenia, and further membership might become a security liability.
The government is currently discussing whether Armenia will participate in the upcoming CSTO military exercises in Kyrgyzstan, and if so, in what format and to what extent, Pashinyan said.
Since the visit by the then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in September 2022 to Armenia, Pashinyan has begun to blame the alliance for not deterring Azerbaijan from moving against the ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2022, as well as engaging in border skirmishes with its Caucasus neighbour.
He also claimed Armenia had lost opportunities to buy weapons and military equipment from other countries due to its membership in the CSTO.
Armenia, he added, was ready to recognise Azerbaijan’s claim to Nagorno-Karabakh if “international guarantees” were provided for ethnic Armenians in the region, and if Baku would withdraw from several areas of Armenia proper that its troops have seized.
It was unclear what he meant by international guarantees. Russia negotiated the ceasefire and deployed peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, after Azeri forces cut the only road between the region and Armenia proper.
In January, Yerevan solicited an EU monitoring mission, which was criticised by Moscow because the deployment of even unarmed civilian observers marks an unprecedented western intervention in a country where Russia has traditionally been the dominant security provider.
The response from Moscow to all these sabre-rattling was the usual methodical patience when Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia will “certainly continue the dialogue with our Armenian friends. The CSTO has demonstrated its effectiveness in various situations” and “has serious potential for further development.”
A “furious” response came a month later when on June 22, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told a news briefing the US is seeking to drive a wedge between Moscow and its allies through disinformation and threats.

The US and its allies are deliberately hampering any attempts by the CSTO to build up relations with other international and regional structures, Zakharova said.
“We see how difficult cooperation between CSTO and other international structures and organisations has been,” she told journalists, adding that “it is a result not of some natural causes but of artificially created issues.”
This is because Washington is offering various benefits to CSTO members in exchange for severing ties to Russia.
These include military and technical cooperation and “alternative security umbrellas,” she claimed, warning that these offers often disguise the west’s desire to gain access to CSTO members’ national databases which contain sensitive information for the Russian-led alliance.
Stressing that Moscow does not limit its allies’ right to develop relations with any third parties, Zakharova also said Russia “believes it is our duty to warn our partners about the risks for our security zone.”
In a Sep 3 interview with an Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Pashinyan upped the ante by accusing Russia of failing to ensure Armenia’s security in the face of what he said was aggression from Azerbaijan over the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region.
He also said that Armenia’s policy of relying solely on Russia to guarantee its security was a “strategic mistake”. Notice the word “strategic”, it’s not just a mistake but a “strategic mistake” somewhat akin to the “strategic defeat” of Russia in the American worldview.
Moreover Pashinyan also claimed Moscow is distracted by its war with Ukraine and had been unable to deliver and was winding down its role in the South Caucasus.
Pashinyan also surprised everyone by saying he believed Russia was in the process of leaving the wider South Caucasus region, and hence Yerevan was therefore trying to diversify its security arrangements.
This is an apparent reference to Armenia’s ties with the EU and the US, and its attempts to forge closer ties with other countries in the region.
Karabakh, long recognised as part of Azerbaijan, is populated mainly by ethnic Armenians.
Taking advantage of the turmoil which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Armenian forces captured territory around Karabakh in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War.
But three decades later Azerbaijan retook the areas in a six-week 2020 conflict, in what is known as the Second Nagorno-Karabak War, which ended with a Russian-brokered truce. Talks have so far failed to clinch a long-term peace.
Armenia complains that Russian peacekeepers overseeing the 2020 truce have failed to end an Azerbaijani blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The rejoinder from Peskov came on Sep 5: “We deeply respect Pashinyan” and expect his “constructive working relationship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin “to remain the key to close cooperation between the two countries,” Peskov said. “But we can’t agree with the points made by the prime minister.”

“Russia is an integral part of this region. Therefore, it can’t go anywhere. And Russia can’t abandon Armenia,” he insisted.
The Kremlin spokesman also noted “there are more Armenians living in Russia than in Armenia itself. Most of them are exemplary and patriotic Russian citizens.”
Given the circumstances, it is paramount for Armenia and Azerbaijan to remain committed to the trilateral agreements that were reached after the 2020 conflict, Peskov explained, as “adhering to those agreements is the key to success.”
Moscow also insisted that it intends to remain the principal guarantor of security in the Caucasus, its backyard, so to speak.
On Sep 8, Russia had summoned Armenian ambassador to present a protest about what it deemed “unfriendly steps” as tension in the South Caucasus surged over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Within hours, Armenia’s foreign ministry issued a statement expressing willingness to resolve disputes with Azerbaijan over the territory, a focal point of two wars in the past 30 years.
However, it made no reference to the Russian complaints.
By Sep 14, three days into the US-Armenia military exercise, Armenia and Azerbaijan accused each other of moving troops close to their joint border.
The next day Russia made a “harsh representation” to Armenia’s ambassador for signing up to the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin.
It was also displeased with Armenia agreeing to host a military exercise with the US and for a humanitarian visit to Ukraine by Pashinyan’s wife.
Many western analysts seem to have discounted the military drill as the major cause of the latest conflagration but who is to say if Azerbaijan had not acted on its worry, there could be a real precursor of US’ involvement in creating a third war in Nagorno-Karabakh.
For your editor it seems like a Eureka moment when Armenia’s ambassador-at-large, Edmon Marukyan on Sep 19, in the heat of the flare-up, wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter), calling on the US to intervene in the renewed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh.
It is interesting to note that apart from X, the global mainstream media did not report on this whereas this news is all over the global independent media.
Your editor is introducing this term, global independent media to refer to all independent bloggers and independent news portals sprouting on the internet all over the world.
Some of these independent bloggers and news portal are patently pro-Russia while some are unabashedly pro-Ukraine. Only very few are really neutral.
The key here is to watch the pro-Russia bloggers and news portals running stories and op-eds that are explicitly anti Russia or not sympathetic to Russia.
Ditto for the pro-Ukraine bloggers and news portals that began to run stories that are explicitly anti Ukraine or not sympathetic to Ukraine.

It is these kind of stories that reflect more or less the truth that is going on in the relevant events.
So it really looks like the US is bent on creating a second front in the Ukraine war via Armenia’s request for it to intervene.
The pieces are already in place – presence of US troops in the military exercise and the EU monitoring team comprising civilians in the EU Mission in Armenia (Euma).
But as very recent developments show this plan breaks into pieces when victory seems to be clinched by the Azeris and Russians with a new ceasefire agreed on between not so much Armenia but the Armenian separatist in Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Meanwhile Pashinyan is facing protests at home demanding his resignation for his mishandling of this crisis. It really looks prescient the famous credo of the late Russian PM, Yevgeny Primakov: “Those who do good will be rewarded. Life gets even with those who do bad.”
This, by the way, has also been the credo of your editor all this while, way before he knew that this was also the credo of Primakov.

If we take history as one of our guides, we can discover rather in a clear cut manner the US’ intentions in the Caucasus.
After its success in the “Natonisation” of Eastern Europe which began during the Clinton administration, by the time George W Bush ruled, the neo-cons were setting their eyes on the Caucasus.
The first salvo on the Caucasus began during the final months of the Bush administration when the US interfered in the conflict between Georgia and the Russian-backed South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008.
Once again Nato was “weaponised” when the US in 2008 promised to consider Georgia’s bid for membership, making Russia all the more determined to ensure the victory of the separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
And indeed the separatists won with the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia on 26 August.
Having been “defeated” in Georgia, the neo-cons’ attention shifted to Ukraine, again using the same playbook of weaponising Nato but with a slight modification.
In concert with the EU, the Euromaidan uprising was launched in 2013 by the neo-cons which later snowballed into the Maidan revolution in 2014 when a democratically elected president of Ukraine was brought down.
This resulted in Russia sending its troops to Ukraine followed later by a ceasefire known as the Minsk agreement which was sealed.
Herein lies the modification whereby the Minsk agreement was used to freeze the conflict for eight years in order for the US and the collective west to build up a far stronger and powerful Ukrainian army to fight the Russians in case it “interferes” in the Donbass again.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response to this modification was to plead to the US to redraw the security architecture of Europe that takes into account Russian interests.
For many years, Russia has rightfully seen all these US manoeuvres in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe as an existential threat. Rightfully because Russia is an integral part of the Caucasus and the Eurasian region, while the US is not.
In 2021 Putin was reported to have told western leaders: “You promised us in the 1990s that (Nato) would not move an inch to the East … You cheated us shamelessly.”
The US has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders see as an existential threat, a point they have made repeatedly for many years.

The Biden administration was unwilling to eliminate that threat through diplomacy and indeed in 2021 recommitted the US to bringing Ukraine into Nato.
Putin, obviously feeling enough is enough, responded by invading Ukraine on Feb 24 last year.
Now that the Ukraine war on the battlefield is not going well for the US and the collective west, the idea of opening a second front in the war is always there.
Candidates for this second front could be Georgia, Moldova, Poland or Romania. The idea of Armenia being the second front is unfathomable because of the close relationship between Russia and Armenia.
Armenia could have been wiped out of existence in the second Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020 had it not been for Russian peace-making deals resulting in a ceasefire and the stationing of Russian peacekeepers there.
So the current flare-up in Nagorno-Karabakh reflects the ingenuity of the neo-cons to conceive plans even when the odds are against them.
The crux of the plan hatched by Armenia and the US and its allies seems to be on blaming Russian “ineffective” peacekeeping operations in Nagorno-Karabakh, in order to create chaos and confusion in the enclave as a pretext for a US intervention in the region.
But because the US is bogged down with the Ukraine war, the leading role for this plan is given to Armenia.
If you think this is far-fetched because there were only 85 US troops and 175 Armenian soldiers in Exercise Eagle Partner to create chaos, then think again!
In 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was brought down by a series of protests that was initially engineered by just one CIA operative, working alone.
This was well documented in a book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, published in 2004.
The book provides Perkins’ account of his career with engineering consulting firm Chas T Main in Boston, in which he claims the involvement of the National Security Agency (NSA), with whom he had interviewed for a job prior to joining Main.
This interview effectively constituted an independent screening that led to his subsequent hiring as an ‘economic hit man’ (EHM) by Einar Greve, vice president of the firm (and alleged NSA liaison).
Perkins claims that he was seduced and trained as an EHM by a mysterious businesswoman named Claudine, who used his NSA personality profile to manipulate and control him.
His job at the firm was to convince leaders of underdeveloped countries to accept substantial development loans for large construction and engineering projects.

Ensuring that these projects were contracted to US companies, such loans provided political influence for the US and access to natural resources for American companies, thus primarily helping local elites and wealthy families, rather than the poor.
The book heavily criticises US foreign policy and the notion that “all economic growth benefits humankind, and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits.”
Perkins suggests in many cases only a small portion of the population benefits at the expense of the rest, pointing to, as an example, an increase in income inequality, whereby large US corporations exploit cheap labour, and oil companies destroy local environments.
Perkins describes what he calls a system of corporatocracy and greed as the driving forces behind establishing the US as a global empire, in which he took a role as an “EHM” to expand its influence.
He describes the role of an EHM as follows: “EHMs” are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
They funnel money from the World Bank, the US Agency for International Development (Usaid), and other foreign “aid” organisations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources.
Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder.
They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalisation.
In 2006, a press release issued by the US State Department has referred to a lack of documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate Perkins’ claim that the NSA was involved in his hiring to Main, which allegedly has links with the Defence Department.
In addition, it also states the NSA “is a cryptological (code making and codebreaking) organisation, not an economic organisation” and that its missions do not involve “anything remotely resembling placing economists at private companies in order to increase the debt of foreign countries.”
The fact the State Department bothered to issue a press release on Perkins as a fabricator and his fondness for conspiracy theories in the book speaks volume of its attempt at damage control that aimed to destroy the reputation of Perkins.
Suffice here to note that Einar Greve, who first offered Perkins a job at the firm, agreed that foreign debt represented a poor economic strategy for developing nations.
“Basically his story is true.… What John’s book says is, there was a conspiracy to put all these countries on the hook, and that happened.
“Whether or not it was some sinister plot or not is up to interpretation, but many of these countries are still over the barrel and have never been able to repay the loans,” Greve added.

Interpretation could be right or wrong but when more data come to reinforce the potentially right interpretation, then it is no longer an interpretation but an actual fact, period!
So don’t underestimate the Americans’ ability and prowess to wreak havoc on a country (Armenia) and its relationship with its neighbour (Azerbaijan) with just one key operator (proven successful in the Iranian case), let alone now with 85 troops in the case of Armenia, which means there would be more than one key operators.
What about the Armenian prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan’s allegation that Russian peacekeepers overseeing the 2020 truce have failed to end an Azerbaijani blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh?
The Russian Foreign Ministry has asserted that the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh was dramatically affected by Armenia’s apparent acknowledgement that the region is part of Azerbaijan.
It cited two occasions during the past two years when Yerevan did so formally, both times during EU-mediated negotiations. The shift impacted the status of Russian peacekeepers, Moscow said.
The first instance came in 2022 in a joint statement issued after talks in Prague, which affirmed that Armenia and Azerbaijan “mutually recognised the territorial integrity and sovereignty of each other.”
The second in May of this year, when Pashinyan stated Azerbaijan’s total territory was 86,600 sq km – a figure that includes Nagorno-Karabakh.
This is unprecedented as Armenia has never officially recognised Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, even though its ties with the region have been profound for decades.
Treating the territory, which Armenians call Artsakh, as part of Armenia itself is a cornerstone of the country’s politics.
Pashinyan reaffirmed that stance in an interview with a US news magazine Politico, as tensions with Azerbaijan escalated.
He claimed that his hand had been forced last year because Russia would not intervene on Armenia’s behalf during border clashes with Azerbaijan.
President Putin has said his Azerbaijani counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, had told him that since Armenia did not dispute the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, any relevant issues should be settled without Yerevan.
“What could we say to that? There’s nothing to be said if Armenia itself recognised Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan,” Putin explained.
Hence, there is no question of Russian peacekeepers failing in their duties since by Yerevan’s own statements, Azerbaijan was acting inside its sovereign territory.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is one of the many examples which in essence is a conflict between two international principles, namely the principle of territorial integrity as advocated by Azerbaijan and the principle of the right to self-determination for ethnic Armenians invoked by Armenia.
Accident of history has placed Nagorno-Karabakh which is populated by ethnic Armenians as an enclave of Azerbaijan.
In 1921 both Azerbaijan and Armenia became Soviet Republics.
Without going into the details of history on why Nagorno-Karabakh ended up as an enclave in Azerbaijan rather than somewhere in or at the border of Armenia, the Soviet Union had done well in giving Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan but offered autonomy to the contested region.
Normally, this kind of arrangement will generally result in a lasting peace once the central authority, in this case Russia i.e. the erstwhile Soviet Union, is strong.
This is proven when there was really no war between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1921 until the self-declaration of independence by Nagorno-Karabakh in September 1991 in a war between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh supported by Armenia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union – a total of 70 years of peace.
This is, in a way, a win-win situation because Nagorno-Karabakh still remained in Azerbaijan but was granted autonomy in running the enclave.
But of course only Armenia would be excluded from this win-win situation as it gains nothing from this arrangement.
But why should Armenia be made to gain from this win-win situation? The people living in Nagorno-Karabakh are definitely ethnic Armenian but they are not Armenian citizens.
In a way Armenia will also be in a win-win situation as it saves both Armenia and Azerbaijan from the costly insane and senseless war between neighbours.
Instead both Armenia and Azerbaijan benefit because they can singularly focus on the economic development of their respective countries.
If we insist on the principle of absolute right to self-determination in the sense of returning a territory in another sovereign country where another ethnic group is in the majority, then we will have to let history be the arbiter.
But then history is not a good arbiter in this case. Why, because we then have to go back to history to determine which country was the de facto ruler of Nagorno-Karabakh in the period when nationalism (invented by the West) was paramount.
And then some would want to go further back in history during the pre-nationalism time on which countries held sway over Nagorno-Karabakh.
This will open a Pandora box because during pre-nationalism time, not only Nagorno-Karabakh came under the sway of various countries, but at one or several points in time, even the whole of Azerbaijan and Armenia came under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire (whose heir is now Türkiye), the Safavid Empire (Iran) and the Russian Empire (Russia).

So the US and the collective west really have no business to meddle in Nagorno-Karabakh and the countries that will have some say in this matter are Russia, Türkiye and Iran, apart from Azerbaijan and Armenia.
In fact, the best way to manage this kind of conflict is to always give autonomy first to the affected region.
This should be followed by Azerbaijan adopting a positive discrimination in Nagorno-Karabakh, not in the sense of affirmative actions for the majority population, but in the sense of giving “special treatment” to the minority Armenians there – minority in the sense of their number vis-à-vis the Azeris in Azerbaijan as a whole – without sacrificing national security and the principles of competency and meritocracy.
Singapore is an excellent example of a country practising positive discrimination for its Malay minority via special treatment during the early days of independence such as giving Malay students free school fees and free tuition fees at the tertiary level, and allowing the national saving scheme for workers to be used to collect monies from all Muslim workers in order to build mosques.
By today even the Singaporean Malays are uncomfortable with this because they want to achieve success and excellence on their own efforts, blood, sweat and tears.
All they want from the government is for it to continue creating a conducive, fair and just atmosphere and environment that are institutionalised for all the unfortunate segment – not just the Malays – of the Singaporean society at large to achieve success via an easier social mobility pathway through an excellent education system.
That is why whenever Malay politicians in Malaysia – regardless of which political parties – used the Singaporean Malays as a bogeyman in an election campaign to become a member of parliament, the general response from Singaporean Malays has always been “we in Singapore are doing well and can look after ourselves. We don’t need sympathy from the Malays in Malaysia.”
This does not mean the Singaporean Malays are arrogant because at the people to people level, the relationship between Singapore Malays and Malaysian Malays are solid and excellent because of the ties of kinship that have developed through the centuries.
Perhaps Azerbaijan can learn this idea of a positive discrimination for the minority from Singapore.
Anyway for the record, of late Malaysian Malay political candidates for an election who harped on Malay Singaporeans as their bogeyman in campaigning always failed to become an MP.
If autonomy fails to achieve the desired result in Nagorno-Karabakh, then the Russian model of giving independence to the affected territory just like what it did in Georgia is an excellent way to prevent conflict.
An independent Nagorno-Karabakh doesn’t necessarily connote a subservient entity that is beholden to Armenia simply because it is not a territory belonging to Armenia. It is not even Armenia though it’s populated with ethnic Armenians as the majority.
It will have diplomatic relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan and will pursue its own national interests independently from the latter two countries, and that national interests include warm and excellent relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

But of course all these won’t take place if the US acts as a spoiler by vetoing the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh in the UN Security Council because of its obsession to meddle in the Caucasus region.

Read more on the latest flare-up in Nagorno-Karabakh and its aftermath, the military exercise between US and Armenia, US intentions in the Caucasus region and the economic hit man:

Nagorno-Karabakh: Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenians explained

Rising tension in the Caucasus

Armenia-US military exercise kicks off near Yerevan

Armenia asks US to intervene in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: What is Russia’s position?

‘An explosive situation’ near Russia’s southern borders: Could a new war erupt between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Azerbaijan Launches “Anti-terrorist” Military Operations in Nagorno-Karabakh

Russian peacekeepers killed in Nagorno-Karabakh – Moscow

Azerbaijani leader calls Putin over peacekeeper deaths

Ex-Soviet state threatens to leave Russian-led military alliance

Russia protests to Armenia as tensions rise over disputed Caucasus region

Kremlin hits back at Armenian leader

West trying to destroy Russian-led bloc – Foreign Ministry

Armenian PM says depending solely on Russia for security was ‘strategic mistake’

Armenian leader ‘making huge mistake’ – Moscow

Nagorno-Karabakh asks Azerbaijan for ceasefire

Azerbaijan is acting ‘in its territory’ in Nagorno-Karabakh – Kremlin

Border Monitors Signal EU’s Deepening Role As Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Broker

Confessions — or Fantasies — of an Economic Hit Man?

South Ossetia: The case for international recognition

LESSONS AND LOSSES OF GEORGIA’S FIVE-DAY WAR WITH RUSSIA

Abkhazia: Moscow sends troops into second enclave

Armed Cossacks pour in to fight Georgians

Statement by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is in essence a conflict between two international principles, namely the principle of territorial integrity as advocated by Azerbaijan and the principle of the right to self-determination for ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh invoked by Armenia.

Accident of history has placed Nagorno-Karabakh which is populated by ethnic Armenians as an enclave of Azerbaijan.

In 1921 both Azerbaijan and Armenia became Soviet Republics.

Without going into the details of history on why Nagorno-Karabakh ended up as an enclave in Azerbaijan rather than somewhere in or at the border of Armenia, the Soviet Union had done well in giving Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan but offered autonomy to the contested region.

Normally, this kind of arrangement will generally result in a lasting peace once the central authority, in this case Russia i.e. the erstwhile Soviet Union, is strong.

This is proven when there was really no war between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1921 until the self-declaration of independence by Nagorno-Karabakh separatist in September 1991 in a war between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh supported by Armenia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union – a total of 70 years of peace.

This is, in a way, a win-win situation because Nagorno-Karabakh still remained in Azerbaijan but was granted autonomy in running the enclave.

But of course only Armenia would be excluded from this win-win situation as it gains nothing from this arrangement. But why should Armenia be made to gain from this win-win situation? The people living in Nagorno-Karabakh are definitely ethnic Armenians but they are not Armenian citizens.

Viewed from a different perspective, in a way Armenia actually is also in a win-win situation as it saves the country from the costly, insane and senseless war between neighbours just for the sake of a piece of real estate.

No doubt sovereignty is something sacrosanct but saving lives from an insane war and living in peace and harmony with your erstwhile neighbour are also sacrosanct.

Instead, geopolitical power play becomes the order of the day beginning with Armenia taking advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union to wage a war on behalf of the separatist in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Things took a turn for the worst when the US and its allies in the collective west, after their success in the “Natonisation” of Eastern Europe set their eyes on the Caucasus.

Beginning with the war in Georgia in 2008 in which Nato was “weaponised” by inviting Georgia to become its member, peace has become a rare commodity in the Caucasus.

In the wake of its defeat in Georgia, the US and its western allies, spearheaded by the neo-cons, instead of embarking on a reverse gear to reflect on the lessons of its defeat in Georgia, continue to set its eyes on the Caucasus – this time on its design for Ukraine.

They should have just left Caucasus to the Caucasians and let them settle their own problem with their neighbours.

It’s now more pertinent to let the status quo remain in which Nagorno-Karabakh remains under the suzerainty of Azerbaijan but with an improved autonomy given to the ethnic Armenians there to govern the enclave.

The resulting peace can then afford Armenia and Azerbaijan with the benefit of singularly focussing on the economic development and progess of their respective countries.

Firstly, there is the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), touted as an alternative to the Suez Canal which both countries can take advantage by participating in it.

The INSTC is a planned 7,200km multi-mode transit system that will connect ship, rail, and road routes for moving cargo between Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, India, and Central Asia.

And then there is a plan in the near future for a series of ambitious new infrastructure projects aimed at helping poorer nations, whose centrepiece is a planned economic corridor connecting India, the Middle East and Europe through rail and shipping lines known as Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.

And finally there is the existing Belt and Road Initiative for countries in need of investment dollars to finance their infrastructure need.

Now, if we insist on the principle of absolute right to self-determination in the sense of returning a territory in another sovereign country where another ethnic group is in the majority there, then we will have to let history be the arbiter.

But then history is not a good arbiter in this case. Why, because we then have to go back to history to determine which country was the de facto ruler of Nagorno-Karabakh in the period when nationalism (invented by the West) was paramount.

And then some would want to go further back in history during the pre-nationalism time to see which countries held sway over Nagorno-Karabakh.

This will open a Pandora box because during pre-nationalism time, not only Nagorno-Karabakh came under the sway of various countries, but at one or several points in time, even the whole of Azerbaijan and Armenia came under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire (whose heir is now Türkiye), the Safavid Empire (Iran) and the Russian Empire (Russia).

So the US and the collective west really have no business to meddle in Nagorno-Karabakh and the countries that will have some say in this matter are Russia, Türkiye and Iran, apart from Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In fact, the best way to manage this kind of conflict is to always give autonomy first to the affected region.

This should be followed by Azerbaijan adopting a positive discrimination in Nagorno-Karabakh, not in the sense of affirmative actions for the majority population, but in the sense of giving “special treatment” to the minority ethnic Armenians there – minority in the sense of their number vis-à-vis the Azeris in Azerbaijan as a whole – without sacrificing national security and the principles of competency and meritocracy.

Singapore is an excellent example of a country practising positive discrimination for its Malay minority though by today even the Singaporean Malays are uncomfortable with this because they want to achieve success and excellence on their own efforts, blood and sweat.

All they want from the government is for it to create a conducive, fair and just atmosphere and environment that are institutionalised for all the unfortunate segment – not just the Malays – of the Singaporean society at large to achieve success via an easier social mobility pathway.

That is why whenever Malay politicians in Malaysia – regardless of which political parties – used the Singaporean Malays as a bogeyman in an election campaign to become a member of parliament, the general response from Singaporean Malays has always been “we in Singapore are doing well and can look after ourselves. We don’t need sympathy from the Malays in Malaysia.”

This does not mean the Singaporean Malays are arrogant because at the people to people level, the relationship between Singapore Malays and Malaysian Malays are solid and excellent because of the ties of kinship that have developed through the centuries.

Perhaps Azerbaijan can learn this idea of a positive discrimination for the minority from Singapore.

Anyway for the record, of late Malaysian Malay political candidates for an election who harped on Malay Singaporeans as their bogeyman in campaigning always failed to become an MP.

If autonomy fails to achieve the desired result in Nagorno-Karabakh, then the Russian model of giving independence to the affected territory just like what it did in Georgia is an excellent way to prevent conflict.

An independent Nagorno-Karabakh doesn’t necessarily connote a subservient entity that is beholden to Armenia simply because it is not a territory belonging to Armenia. It is not even Armenia though it’s populated with ethnic Armenians as the majority.

It will have diplomatic relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan and will pursue its own national interests independently from the latter two countries, and that national interests include warm and excellent relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

But of course all these won’t take place if the US acts as a spoiler by vetoing the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh in the UN Security Council because of its obsession to meddle in the Caucasus region.

Regards,

Jamari Mohtar

Editor, Let’s Talk!

* Read our op-eds published by several news portals about Brics-11, the sanctions war imposed on Russia and the Black Sea Grain Initiative:

https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/462551

https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/452383

https://www.thesundaily.my/local/black-sea-grain-initiative-hits-a-snag-BH11259448

https://www.businesstoday.com.my/2023/07/14/the-global-whammy-of-rising-food-inflation/

https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/672259

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2023/09/949912/russia-has-already-won-sanctions-war