Authors: Ruslana Kochmar & Suddha Chakravartti*
The key point to bear in mind is that Russia cannot be in Europe without Ukraine also being in Europe, whereas Ukraine can be in Europe without Russia being in Europe. Zbigniew Brzezinski— Chapter 4, The Black Hole, p. 122
Arguably, few countries are at the crossroads of the grand chessboard of international politics like Ukraine. A prisoner of geography, few countries have had to historically adjust to great power politics as Ukraine, and very few countries have a more complicated relationship with their identity and their territory than Ukraine. Straddled in the heart of the Eurasian continent, Ukraine’s prospects, it’s identity, national consciousness, and sovereignty will depend upon how international and Eurasian politics shape in the area. Even the name Ukraine (Okraina), roughly translated as “borderlands,” “periphery” or “frontier region” in Slavic (Rywkin, 2014), bears testament to its historical legacy as a geopolitical pivot. In fact, the current geopolitical tug of war is not merely international, but it’s fraught with internal ambiguities originating from historical complications. The west of Ukraine, the lands which have been historically influenced by Poland as well as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is the hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism; the eastern front is ethno-linguistically Russian; the area around Kyiv is the birthplace of the Kievan Rus, and hence, crucial to Ukraine’s identity; and Crimea, which was historically occupied by the Ottomans. The recent conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the fragmentation of this historical land, as the river Dneiper dissects the country into different spheres of influence (Rexhepi, 2016). On one side, as Ukraine inches towards the west, its integration is restrained because its modern territory falls within the crucial “near abroad” limits of Russian foreign policy.
The Paradox of Ukraine’s Sovereignty
The security challenges presented by Russia’s intervention in Crimea in 2014 are crystalised in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty. Ukraine emerged as an independent state post-1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Budapest Memorandum signed at the OSCE conference in 1994, where Ukraine acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, also saw the permanent members of the United Nations give security affirmations to Ukraine regarding its territorial integrity, the recognition of its autonomy, and its existing borders. In 1995, Russia and Ukraine consented to separate the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, whereas in 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed a Treaty on Friendship or also known as “Big Treaty.” Although Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence have been firmly embedded in an international framework, the multi-vector strategy is all but crumbling. The independence of Ukraine has been viewed as “the greatest geopolitical loss for Russia in the post-Cold War period” (Sarikaya, 2017). By Ukraine’s sovereignty, Russia had lost not just its influence over the Baltic States and Poland, but it also lost its capacity to lead the erstwhile Soviet Union’s southern and eastern non-Slavic population that Russia gained from the Ottomans under Catherine the Great (Marshall, 2016: 20). A neutral Ukraine is acceptable by Russia, and Ukraine has always been viewed by Russia as a buffer region till pro-Moscow regimes ruled from Kyiv (Ibid). This perspective also conveys the link to the important concept of “centre and periphery” in Russian Foreign Policy (Ferrari, 2020) that gained momentum under Vladimir Putin’s revisionist notion of Novorossiya (New Russia).
The fear of Russian interference in Ukraine’s sovereignty in 2013 led to the Euromaidan mass- protests in Kyiv which quickly engulfed the country, mainly its western parts. The protests resulted in the downfall of pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych’s government, resulting in his exile. Fearing the worst geostrategic outcome, Russia was left with little choice but to annex Crimea in order to safeguard Crimea’s Russian speaking majority, but vitally, to protect and bolster Russia’s naval port in Sevastopol (Marshall, 2016: 16). However, through its military annexation of Crimea, Russia pursued to recapture its earlier influence and to reignite its image as a superpower. The Crimean annexation was evidence of Russia’s strategic importance of the Black Sea region and its historical necessity for access to warm water seaports. The annexation also reinforced Russia’s zero tolerance for losing its sway in its “near abroad,” something clearly witnessed in recent decades during the Chechen wars (1994-1996 and 1999-2009) and the Russo-Georgian war (2008).
Despite the international accords that recognised Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, Ukraine’s military and economic security began to deteriorate when Russia forced Ukraine to surrender the Association Agreement with the EU in 2013. Russia set up trade barriers against Ukraine, specifically by offering credit to Ukraine as a ‘carrot.’ Prior to the Crimean annexation, Russia supplied a large portion of Ukraine’s natural gas requirements, after which imports diminished and halted in 2016. Regardless, Russia drastically depends on Ukrainian pipelines for transporting its natural gas to Central and Eastern Europe and is contracted to continue transporting gas through Ukraine for a few additional years (Masters, 2020).
Nonetheless, Ukraine’s energy sector is changing, and its battle over energy independence has only begun. The debates with Russia over transit arrangements and revenues have been pushed into the spotlight. Russian Gazprom accelerated the construction of new bypass pipelines such as TurkStream. Another large-scale transit route of Russian gas through Ukraine to Europe is immersed in the dispatch of Gazprom’s $11 billion Nord Stream II undertaking, which joins Russia to one of Europe’s significant gas consumers – Germany (Bros, 2015). And although the viability of the project is questionable, this possesses a serious threat to Ukraine’s and EU’s energy autonomy. The European Union leaders are now examining the new “clean’ energy” policies, whilst reflecting on the disruption created by Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. This also mirrors the strategy of both EU and Ukraine to reduce its reliance on Russian gas to achieve greater energy independence and not be politically or economically diminished by Russia’s “big stick” foreign policy.
The Heartland Theory and the Strategic Weight of Western and Russian Manoeuvres
Halford Mackinder’s Heartland theory appears to be still relevant nowadays as evidenced in the growing geopolitical turmoil in Eastern Europe – the ‘Heartland.’ This theory conveys that the control of Eurasia and Africa could be only accomplished via control of the countries bordering the erstwhile Soviet Union, including Ukraine. In the 20th century, Mackinder assumed the ‘pivoting’ or controlling Eastern Europe as the locus of geostrategic access to the Heartland. By gaining influence in the pivot area, the controlling state would obtain the dominance of the global order (Alcenat, 2008). This geostrategic objective was further espoused in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard (1997), whose implementation by the West resulted in the infiltration and spread of western influence and dominance into the erstwhile Soviet space. The western endgame, through these manoeuvres, were directed towards thwarting Russia’s ability to project power in Eurasia (Baldwin & Heartsong, 2015). Thus, the pivot area essentially provides further access and marks Ukraine as a primary geopolitical interest. However, it is mainly due to such hawkish neoconservative strategies that the hasty and unchecked spread of western influence has resulted in providing fodder for the resurgence of Russia as a dominant Eurasian and global superpower (Baldwin & Heartsong, 2015). Russia’s counter as a reactionary power has stymied the dominance of the West in Eurasia, where today its “near-abroad” strategy continues to threaten Ukraine’s national security.
The conflict in Ukraine has truly sabotaged the whole Euro-Atlantic security. The key for the normalisation of relations between NATO, Russia, and Ukraine balances on Russia’s acknowledgement of Ukraine’s independence, autonomy and territorial integrity. About seven years have passed since Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and its constant support to pro-Russian uprisings and destabilisation in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. This scenario has not only destabilised the military and national security of Ukraine, but also led to suspended cooperation with Russia that has undermined its economic security. It is evident that Russia seeks its security tactics through a delineation of spheres of influence among post-Soviet powers. Similarly, this aggressive stance endangers European security too. Therefore, it is in the interest of the EU and NATO to seriously consider the sanctity of Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is key to containing Russia and its sphere of influence.
Currently, Ukraine stands at the forefront as a “geopolitical pivot” of another great power politics, pitting Russia against West, resulting in diplomatic coldness and reigniting the fears of another Cold War. The US and European views are centred around a solid, autonomous Ukraine, which is “a significant piece of building a Europe entire, free, and at peace”(Kaddorah, 2014). While the rapid expansion of NATO and the EU post-1990 is intended to strengthen and secure Europe, its expansion today is dangerously close for Russian liking. This is because the expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States have greatly diminished Russia’s strategic depth it once enjoyed under the Soviet Union. The current endeavours to consolidate Ukraine under the umbrella of a western economic and security associations has shifted the balance of power, with the expansion of western influence into Russia’s previously controlled neighbourhoods. Through the reactionary policies of Russia, we can clearly observe its resurgent attempts to recapture its influence on those post-Soviet Union regions. Moreover, it manifests Russia’s reluctance to permit the West to accomplish any further its targets in the east.
An Independent and Sovereign Ukraine as the Key to Euro-Atlantic Security
International transformations and growing military security threats in Ukraine directly or indirectly influence the security framework of Europe. Conferring to the ‘Western-Ukrainian Axis,’ we can notice the expansionist strategy of NATO and the EU with Ukraine. At first, NATO’s expansion towards the East remained frozen. However, after Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, the Euro-Atlantic community took it as a sign of the Kremlin’s desire to restore its authoritative reach in Eastern Europe and over the post-soviet territory.
Russia has effectively utilised Europe’s energy reliance to frame its ‘energy groupings’ inside the EU, in order to establish greater influence. Hence, Russia has managed to turn the table and undermine the security not only in Ukraine but in the whole Euro-Atlantic region. Through its intervention in the Transcaucasia region (Zakavkazye), Moscow demonstrated to the West that they should reflect on their expansionist strategy.
The conditions for territorial security around Ukraine are vital due to the following reasons:
The accelerated ‘sphere of influence’ of major powers and the geopolitical position of Ukraine, which attracts the interest of major powers. This provokes external influences in the region and demands the preventive use of force to protect borders.
Further escalation of ‘frozen’ clashes in the Black Sea-Caspian Sea region is another threat, which challenges the internal instability of neighbouring countries. This highlights the lack of perspectives and a common vision of regional reconstruction processes.
The growing militarisation and foreign military presence in the region, added by the further risk of the deployment of new arsenal systems.
Uncertain issues identified within the constitutional regulations. There is an increasing trend in nationalism, which additionally implies the importance of cultural rights of ethnic minorities that could revive territorial claim issues in the regional agenda.
Ukraine directly falls under the developing tension of distinctively coordinated centres of influence: Russia, the US, and the EU. Currently, it is difficult to imagine Ukraine guarantee its security in the modern world independently due to its destabilised economy and energy dependency. With the realisation of the EU integration strategy and its incorporation within NATO, Ukraine must politically manoeuvre in moulding new pan-European balances of power and embrace deterrent capabilities concerning ongoing security issues. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum and other international security instruments concerning Ukraine should be reinforced. The best ultimate outcome could be viewed as establishing a network of legally binding instruments. These instruments would secure a certain scope to the UN Security Council member-states and other contracting parties if there should be an occurrence of armed aggression against Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine has the right to acquire such affirmations, most importantly as a result of it being one of the few voluntarily states to abandon its nuclear potential (Adamenko, 2012).
Some present operations involving NATOs alliance with Ukraine include peace-support actions, defence and security sector reform, military-to-military cooperation and defence technology. Since 2014, Ukraine has been the largest recipient of NATO’s Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme in accordance with the decision of member states to increase the inclusion of Ukraine. For instance, in the previous five years, there were 69 SPS activities conducted with Ukrainian researchers and specialists. Nowadays, Ukraine remains the leading partner of NATO through the ongoing 32 SPS ventures that contributed to 17% of all SPS Programme in 2019 (NATO, 2020). From Ukraine’s perspective, the urgency of military security also includes the importance of safeguarding national interests in the Black Sea region. This entails the development of dialogues with key neighbouring regions and receiving technical assistance from NATO.
Hence, Ukraine has been broadly cooperating with NATO, especially at a strategic level. The apex point of the strategic cooperation with NATO was the Brussels Summit Declaration on July 11, 2018. During the summit, Ukraine’s alliance goals were formally recognised, as well as NATO enrolment (The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, n.d). Since then, Ukraine has been effectively integrating NATO norms in its Armed Forces, for instance, by redesigning military units of the General Staff of the Armed Forces around standards that are appropriate to NATO states. Due to this, Ukraine’s overall defence unit is experiencing improvements through the rebuilding of the infrastructure and mobilisation of training centres.
BLACK SEA SECURITY
The intensification of the struggle and competition for natural resources is a growing security challenge at both regional and global levels. Competition for natural resources exemplifies geopolitical tensions around the world. Since the Crimean annexation, the Black Sea region is experiencing a change in the balance of power. The Black Sea region is a strategic but a sensitive area, as it is located at the centre of regional tensions, natural resources and geopolitical competitions between Russia and Ukraine. The geopolitical transformation is not only about territorial integrity but also maritime security. After the Cold War, Russia diminished its leverage of influence over the Black Sea region. Subsequently, the prioritisation of geopolitical interest in the Black Sea Region was re-established due to the extensive transport network and energy reserves (Masters, 2020).
Ukraine has similarly adapted reforms of its armed forces to procedures that are NATO compatible in terms of the Ukrainian navy. Prior to 2014, Ukraine did not consider the Black Sea region as the key security threat, hence, the forces committed to maritime security were narrow, apart from Georgia (Wezeman & Kuimova, 2018). There was a lack of funding for the Ukrainian navy in comparison to the army and active personnel. Whereas the focus on land operations in eastern Ukraine was doubled, the number of naval personnel was halved since minor warships and non-combat ships were removed from the military service
Human Security and Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
The conflict in Ukraine has taken around 13,000 lives and has resulted in the ‘disappearances’ of hostages (UNIAN, 2019). Moreover, Ukraine’s security disputes have directly affected human security issues concerning the integration and adaptation of IDPs originating from eastern Ukraine. There are official reports that determined that the territory controlled by Russia-led forces exhibit life-threatening conditions in detention centres (US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 2019).
In regions that are dominated by Russian influence, the Justice for Peace in Donbas Coalition showed that sexual violence was used pervasively in ‘unofficial’ detention facilities (Khylko & Tytarchuk, 2017). There is clear oppression on the freedom of expression, including blocked media outlets and the use of violence against individual journalists that undermine the country’s sovereignty. Additionally, Russia-led forces forestalled the transmission of Ukrainian independent TV channels and radio programming in territories under their control.
Under such security circumstances, there is an impulse to delay and overlook human security issues to ‘better occasions’ and focus only on military issues and territorial integrity. In any case, it is wrong to consider human security as a sort of stabiliser that restricts state security. In democratic states, human and state security are interconnected aspects in the strengthening of national resilience.
Referring to the Finnish Foreign and Security Policy, improving communication between the various components of security apparatus with citizens is fundamental (Khylko & Tytarchuk, 2017). For instance, the German Armed Forces, Bundeswehr, styles itself as a pro-democratic unit by drawing closer to individual and civil society issues. This also signifies the role of public communication that contributes to the responsive systems of human security threats. The new National Security Strategy of Ukraine (2015) presents an updated arrangement between citizens and state based on democratic values. In this regard, the primary function in ensuring security is given to military and law enforcement bodies, while adding the dynamic inclusion of civil society and NGOs.
The current insecurity in Ukraine is a consequence of deep-rooted ideological, informational, geopolitical, and domestic fault-lines. A revisionist Russia that claims the heart and centre of Eurasia pushes both Ukraine and the EU to strengthen its military and economic security and bolster policies to reach post-conflict settlement objectives. A sovereign and stable Ukraine that is firmly committed to a democratic order is key to a successful Euro-Atlantic security system. The evolution of circumstances in Eastern Ukraine demonstrated that Ukraine was not prepared to forestall and react to Russia’s growing influence. Thus, it is important to establish solid long- term security strategies so that the cycle of interventions in Ukraine’s sovereign matters does not repeat. This calls for the revision of medium and long-term policy strategies via reinforcing energy and economic security of the state.
In the new geopolitical setting, the foreign policy of post-Soviet Russia has long been characterised as reactive rather than proactive. Historically, Russia has always felt trapped by the influences of its geography and geopolitical realities, which have prominently influenced its foreign policy to rely on catching up with other hegemonies and great powers to maintain its “sphere of influence.” Although Russian energy revenues are strong, it is a double-edged sword that is making Kremlin dependent on hydrocarbon exports. A partial switch to renewable energy is a great opening for Ukraine to become less energy-dependent and improve its economy. This transition and diversification would not just help Ukraine to advance its energy sovereignty, but would also bring more durable peace, self-reliance, and national security. If Ukraine would be able to resist its dependence on Russian hydrocarbons – energy and national security would be automatically strengthened. Russia’s deep economic isolation, which has only deepened since the beginning of the Crimean annexation and its intervention in the Donbas region, could be further used to destabilise Kremlin’s position. As the end goal for the achievement of military security, post-conflict reconstruction should be realised through the demobilisation of military groups in the non-government-controlled area. Conclusively, by reclaiming the control of the territory, the reintegration of society will be possible via the elimination of supplies of weapons.
Kremlin has used every opportunity to keep the Trilateral Contact Group paralysed on their commitments and has not shied away from using its proxies to destabilise Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia seem to interpret differently the execution of the arrangements of the Minsk Agreements. The key enquiry is now whether Russia can be convinced to accept a modernised version of the Minsk Agreements or a completely new framework. The OSCE delegates have raised this issue, as well as German and French interlocutors. It is likewise crucial that Ukraine is not standing by latently in negotiations. So far, the Minsk Agreements’ efforts have produced very limited results in the reintegration of the eastern regions that are under Russian occupation. On the optimistic side, Ukraine has discussed its second part of the Strategy for the Economic Development of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (Ministry of Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine, 2020). The Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers ratified this report on December 23, 2020, whereas by summer 2021 they expect to prepare a roadmap and a package of bills to execute economic initiatives in the occupied eastern locale.
From the very beginning, the Ukrainian conflict has developed on two converging planes: one inside Ukraine and the other between Russia and the West, where Ukraine was just a ‘stumbling block’ in the process of democratisation. The Kremlin’s proxies in Donbas are demanding a) goodwill on all sides, b) a concrete detailed roadmap, c) a group of additional selected intermediaries who could guarantee the peace-making process, d) the acceptance and presence of all parties required for the reintegration of the eastern region. Talks must include the representatives of the “People’s Republics” to drastically increase their self-government on the condition of preserving the common border and some conditions that would determine their legitimate status. Meanwhile, Ukraine should invite new members of the EU (predominantly from neutral states) and the US to act as guarantors in their talks with Kremlin. These conditions would increase the chances for Ukraine as the sovereign state to achieve its “best scenario” and oppose external and domestic radical nationalistic forces in the future.
* Suddha Chakravartti is the Head of Research, and Lecturer in International Relations at EU Business School.
Peace, Problems and Perspectives in the Post-war South Caucasus
The Second Karabakh War ended with the signing of the trilateral declaration between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia on November 10, 2020. The declaration, which stopped the war and laid the foundation for solving other thorny issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan, including the liberation of the remaining territories under occupation (Aghdam, Kalbajar, Lachin) as well as the unblocking of all economic and transport communications in the region, may have heralded the dawning of a different period in the history of a long war-ravaged region of the South Caucasus. This is evidenced by the announcement of new cooperation initiatives such as the “six-party cooperation platform” and the establishment of the “Zangezur corridor,” which aims not only to link Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also to play a wider role in enhancing the region’s standing by providing interconnectivity across diverse geographic and geopolitical zones. This process has already involved Russia and Turkey and will potentially facilitate links between Central Asia and Europe. There is much going on in the region in this regard and talks about the probability of building a Pax Caucasia in the South Caucasus are more than mere hype.
There have already been reports and testimonies about Azerbaijan’s intention to move on, post-Second Karabakh War, and adopt a maximally cooperative and magnanimous approach towards Armenia following the latter’s defeat in the war. This was apparent in the many concessions made by Azerbaijan in the post-war period, such as providing a ten-day extension (from November 15 to November 25, 2020) of the deadline for the Armenian Armed Forces and the Armenian population that had settled in Kalbajar during the occupation to leave the region, and the return to Armenia of 69 Armenian nationalsdetained in Azerbaijan and 1400 bodies. Moreover, as a gesture of good will, Azerbaijan helped with the transfer of humanitarian aid to Armenian residents in Karabakh; facilitated the transfer of goods through Azerbaijan’s main territory; allowed Armenian citizens to continue using the parts of the Gorus–Kafan highway that pass through the newly liberated Azerbaijani territories; and last, but definitely not least, for the first time in three decades the transportation of Russian natural gas to Armenia through Azerbaijan became a reality.
However, this cautious optimism about the nascent prospects of peace and cooperation in the region is facing a number of challenges. These include Armenia’s flouting of Article 4 of the November 10, 2020 declaration that demanded the withdrawal of all remaining armed groups from Azerbaijani territories; purposeful misrepresentation by Armenia of militia members captured by Azerbaijan as a result of counter-terrorist operations since November 10 as prisoners of war (PoW) and resultant attempts to exert pressure on Azerbaijan; and the newly intensified debate on who might have launched Iskandar M missiles against the Azerbaijani city of Shusha during the 44-day war. The latter issue in particular seems to boggle the mind after the Azerbaijani National Agency for Mine Action (ANAMA) recently discovered the remnants of an Iskandar M ballistic missile in Shusha. According to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the export version of this missile is the Iskandar E, which the Russian Federation exported only to Armenia. The Iskandar M, the remnants of one of which were discovered in Shusha,is in the sole possession of the Russian Federation. The story behind this discovery definitely has a dark side that needs to be clarified, as the absence of plausible answers may generate dangerous speculation. Either way, this issue, along with the others discussed above, is also inhibiting a seamless transition to the post-conflict rehabilitation period.
In addition to the above, the danger posed by the landmines planted in the previously occupied Azerbaijani territories is very acute. According to some estimates, Armenia spent$350 million on planting landmines in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region. ANAMA is currently undertaking operations towards clearing the areas contaminated with landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) and initial estimates suggest that the neutralization of UXO, missiles, and the remaining ammunition in the combat areas could require 5–6 years, while it might take some10–13 years before the mined areas are completely cleared. Although Azerbaijan is also receiving help from its friends, partners, and international organizations, including Turkey, Russia, and the United Nations, in the form of staff training, delivery of mine-clearing equipment, and financial assistance, this is obviously not yet sufficient for tackling this very difficult and precarious work.
The issue is further exacerbated by the fact that, in response to all the gestures of goodwill by Azerbaijan aimed at turning the page on hostility and embarking on building a cooperative relationship with Armenia, the latter still refuses to give Azerbaijan maps of the landmines planted in its formerly occupied territories. Worse still, as noted by the Assistant to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan – Head of the Department of Foreign Policy Affairs of the Presidential Administration at the briefing held for the diplomatic corps on the occasion of the “International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action” (April 5, 2021),on the one occasion when Azerbaijan was able to obtain maps of purported mined areas from Armenia, these maps turned out to contain false information, as ANAMA was unable to find anything based on the coordinates therein. “This could mean that Armenia purposefully misled Azerbaijan,” Mr. Hajiyev noted. Apparently, there is still no progress whatsoever in terms of persuading Armenia to cooperate on the issue of landmines. However, this is hugely important, as refusal to collaborate on such a crucial issue may diminish the already meagre prospects for achieving lasting peace and cooperation between the erstwhile enemies in the wake of Azerbaijan’s one-sided concessions to Armenia.
International conventions prohibit anti-personnel landmines (APL), the most dangerous form used against civilians. Every year, reputable organizations in the field, such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL),report thousands of people dying or being injured owing to landmines. Post-Second Karabakh war, Azerbaijan has already reported the deaths of dozens of its citizens as well as military servicemen, including Russian peacekeepers, who have died or been maimed as result of anti-personnel landmine explosions. If the correct maps of the mined areas are not given to the Azerbaijani side in due time, the numbers of casualties will increase, adding to the already daunting global statistics of human deaths due to landmines. It is hoped that Armenia will not realize too late that civilians should not be at the receiving end of the regime’s frustration and resentfulness over the war that was lost.
Thus, there are clearly visible challenges of the post-conflict period that need to be overcome. The complexity of the outstanding issues demands transparency, cooperation, and mutual compromise if there is a genuine wish to move away from the horrors of the past. This should be undertaken by all the stakeholders that signed the November 10, 2020, agreements that ended the Second Karabakh War, because unilateral efforts may likely be insufficient to ultimately break the vicious cycle of hostility and war.
South Caucasus: Prospects and challenges
During an online conference on the current situation in the South Caucasus, hosted by Rossiya Segodnya news agency, the executive director of the “Eurasian Development” center Stanislav Pritchin and Alexander Karavayev, a researcher with the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Economics, presented their joint report on the “Settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the development of the South Caucasus: prospects and challenges.”
Earlier, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his Azeri and Armenian colleagues on the sidelines of the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the CIS to discuss humanitarian and economic issues related to Nagorno-Karabakh. They noted that the Russian-mediated ceasefire agreement in Nagorno-Karabakh, signed on November 9, 2020, was the first document in many years to tackle systemic issues of settlement and offer a primary plan for normalizing relations between the conflicting sides.
During the online conference, Stanislav Prichin and Alexander Karavayev outlined potential areas of cooperation in various fields and identified the role of external actors, primarily of Russia and Turkey, in realizing the existing potential. They also analyzed the prospects of economic development in the South Caucasus.
Stanislav Pritchin said that the idea of writing the report came right after the signing of the peace accord in Nagorno-Karabakh. In addition to the usual collection of information, several roundtables were held, attended by Russian experts, and Armenian and Azerbaijani specialists were polled and asked the same questions. Naturally enough, Baku and Yerevan had diametrically opposite views of the results of the ceasefire agreement, with Azerbaijan seeing them as a reflection of the changes brought about by its military victories, while Armenia views them as a major defeat that forced it to make major concessions. There was even talk about the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his government. Pashinyan has so far managed to stabilize the situation, with early parliamentary elections slated for this coming summer, which will most likely keep him in power. Polls also showed that even if Pashinyan’s party loses out, Armenia will still be forced to comply with the terms of the agreement simply by virtue of its position. Indeed, Yerevan has been quick to give the Akdam, Geybaldar and Lachin regions back to Baku.
Speaking of risks and challenges, the expert noted that we are primarily talking about domestic political risks both in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as external ones – exacerbation of contradictions between outside players and, finally, the danger of a new conflict flaring up directly between Yerevan and Baku. … First of all, Armenia finds itself in the former group of risks. A survey of experts done in February showed that 67 percent of respondents believed that Nikol Pashinyan would not stay in power, while only 33 believed he would. The situation in Azerbaijan is calmer: they expect Armenia to fulfill all the terms of the trilateral agreement. By the way, Azerbaijan has a lot of work to do to restore the region’s infrastructure and resettle the refugees, which will prove a heavy burden on the country’s budget.
As far as external risks go, the gravest concern is the regional rivalry between Russia and Turkey. Seventy-two percent of the Armenian experts surveyed believe that this is fraught with destructive consequences, and only 28 said that Russian-Turkish interaction will help stabilize the region. The overwhelming majority of Azeri experts have no problem with the Russian and Turkish influence on the peaceful settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh. The role of the OSCE Minsk Group in the settlement of the Karabakh problem is assessed differently in Armenia and Azerbaijan. While the Armenians pin hopes on the Group, the Azerbaijanis do not see any benefit from it.
The status of the Russian peacekeepers, who will stay on in the conflict zone for the next five years, is an important issue. Their mandate will automatically be renewed if it is not objected to by either side. As of now, 42 percent of Azeri experts believe that five years from now the mission of the Russian peacekeepers will be over. Just as many believe that they will still be needed, and 16 percent said that it will depend on the situation. In Armenia, 85 percent of respondents answered that five years from now the presence of Russian peacekeepers will still be needed.
The dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh remains the biggest sticking point, with Azerbaijan considering this territory as its own, which is confirmed by the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council issued in the wake of the Soviet breakup. The Armenians, conversely, believe that even after the conclusion of the November trilateral agreement, Nikol Pashinyan does not recognize Azerbaijan’s right to Nagorno-Karabakh. A survey of the two countries’ experts showed that in each of them the absolute majority – more than 80 percent – thinks that within the next five years the status of Nagorno-Karabakh will not acquire a mutually acceptable legal form. Pritchin also considers the problem of border delimitation in disputed territories as being intractable.
Wrapping up the political section of the report, Stanislav Pritchin outlined three possible scenarios of political development in the South Caucasus: negative, neutral and optimal. In a negative scenario, one or more parties opt out of the trilateral accord. According to the neutral scenario, some of the provisions of this agreement will be implemented, while some will not. The positive scenario sees the implementation of all provisions by all the signatories to the deal. The majority of experts in Armenia (about 80 percent) and a significant number (over 40 percent) of those in Azerbaijan, gravitate towards the second, neutral variant.
The economic part of the report was presented by Alexander Karavayev, who emphasized that it is for the first time in 30 years that a post-Soviet state is restoring its territorial integrity, including in economic terms. Not only did the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh suffer from the ethnic conflict of 1991-92, but it was not developing economically and did not have any investment status. The development took place only at the microeconomic level; there were no large-scale recovery programs sponsored by the state, including those aimed at luring major foreign investors. Karavayev warns that given the enormity of the tasks at hand one should not expect any quick results – we are talking about a decade, no less.
The Azeri leadership has outlined the first stage of restoration to run until 2025. In 2021, US 1.3 billion will be allocated for the reconstruction of energy facilities, the construction of roads, trunk infrastructure, including the creation of transit transport communications across the territory of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. To fill them with goods, Armenia, as the party that has suffered the most from the conflict, must see the prospects for making up for the losses. This could be achieved through exports, primarily of raw materials, such as copper ore and rare earth and precious metals (molybdenum, gold, etc.). In practical terms, the export of raw materials from Armenia to Mediterranean ports would be facilitated by modernizing the old Soviet railway via the Nakhichevan autonomous region to the Turkish port of Iskenderun, where there is a terminal of the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works. Alexander Karavayev warned, however, that the implementation of large-scale economic projects would attract big investors and competition between them could stir up contradictions between large regional players. He still believes that “the game is worth the candle.”
The main conclusion that can be drawn from the report is that the signing of the trilateral agreement has opened a “window of opportunity” for the gradual normalization of political and economic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, including the settlement of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh.
From our partner International Affairs
A Grey Swan: Is There a New Conflict in Donbass?
The prospect of a new exacerbation in Ukraine’s Donbass region has worried market players. It is difficult to talk about the strong influence of bellicose statements on the currency and stock markets. However, investors have again started talking about “geopolitical risk”. The key concern stems from the fact that the resumption of a large-scale armed conflict will inevitably lead to new sanctions against Russia. Moreover, the scale of such restrictions is difficult to predict, which gives rise to the uncertainty of expectations. Should strict sanctions be viewed as a baseline scenario? What is to be expected from the development of the situation?
Ceasefire violations in Donbass were already evident in winter. The ceasefire has been in effect since July 27 last year. However, on March 31, in the Contact Group on Conflict Resolution, the Ukrainian side raised the issue of a new ceasefire statement. In fact, this meant that Kiev considered the existing agreement invalid, citing cases of shootings and military losses. Moscow criticised this initiative. All this is happening against the background of the concentration of Ukrainian troops in the conflict zone. Russian troops are also moving to the state border. Statements by Ukrainian officials, who cited a conversation between ministers, about US support in the event of a war with Russia, added fuel to the fire.
A military exacerbation may well be viewed as one possible scenario. At least it is not devoid of precedent. During the August 2008 war in in Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili launched a military campaign, citing the support of the United States, among other things, as one of his motivations. Later it turned out that such support was only conditional, but confidence in it could become a trigger for radical decisions. There is also the experience of the recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh. For a long time it was believed that it would be difficult for both sides to win in the conflict. As a result, Azerbaijan won a victory using new tactics: with the help of unmanned aerial vehicles. Ukraine also plans to use Turkish drones, although they have not yet appeared in large quantities in service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Kiev may also believe that a new conflict will have a high cost for Russia. Even in the event of the defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Moscow is unlikely to go beyond the existing boundaries of the DPR and LPR. New sanctions will be imposed against Russia. Perhaps the Ukrainian leadership also hopes for good luck. Even tactical successes in Donbass will strengthen the Ukrainian position.
However, this scenario is still extremely risky for Kiev. In recent years, Russia has shown that it is ready to take decisive action. Force can be used without undue hesitation. Moscow understands that the West will side with Ukraine in any scenario. But political support is one thing, and military intervention is quite another. The United States and its allies are unlikely to agree to such an intervention. Even the supply of lethal weapons will have its limits. Without a doubt, they increase the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. However, they are unlikely to allow it to achieve qualitative and quantitative superiority, even on the scale of the alleged theatre of military operations. The Russian army has undergone a high degree of modernisation. It is capable of rapidly concentrating well-trained and well-armed small units, units and large units. The threat of sanctions will also fail as a deterrent. There’s no doubt they will damage the economy. However, Moscow is unlikely to be stopped if it comes to a military conflict. In addition, Russia has a certain amount of space to vary the degree of its involvement. It can range from active support of the forces of the LPR and DPR to direct involvement in the conflict and the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the conflict zone.
Apparently, the Ukrainian leadership does not intend to bring the matter to a direct clash. It is escalating the situation, trying to attract the attention of Western partners and gain points for the future. Most likely, the Kiev authorities initiated the current manoeuvres of their own accord, and they are not the result of the “insidious game” of the West. However, the American and EU diplomats may well use such manoeuvres to put pressure on Russia. The main threat is the loss of control over the situation, should the symbolic whipping turn into a real conflict.
In the end, full-scale military operations in Donbass in the near future are not the baseline scenario. Russia is a strong adversary; the risk of big losses for Ukraine are great. Accordingly, it is hardly worth considering a scenario of a sharp tightening of sanctions against Russia. No radical aggravation—no radical sanctions.
At the same time, politics likes surprises. Erroneous assessments, the personal ambitions of leaders, the peculiarities of group decision-making with their “shift to risk”, random incidents and much more can give rise to an extreme scenario. War in this case is a “grey”, rather than a “black swan”. It is unlikely, but its parameters are quite clear. Low chances of winning a war can be offset by high expectations of its consequences. Is it not an attractive scenario to give Russia a military slap in the face during an election year? However, in Moscow, such a scenario is also, apparently, expected. With appropriate organisational conclusions.
From our partner RIAC
How to incorporate the environment in economic ventures for a sustainable future?
We are in the phase of world history where economic development and protection of environment must go side by side....
Future of Work: Next Election Agenda 2022
During the last millennia, never ever before did the global populace ended up inside one single test tube? Observe, the...
COVID-19 As an Agent of Change in World Order
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed millions of lives. It has severely damaged the economy of the world....
Scaling Up Development Could Help Southern African leaders to Defeat Frequent Miltant Attacks
Leaders of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are now considering, without foreign interference, tackling frequent insurgency devastating regional development,...
Israel and Turkey in search of solutions
Twelve and eleven years have elapsed since the Davos and Mavi Marmara incidents, respectively, and Turkey-Israel relations are undergoing intense...
Peace, Problems and Perspectives in the Post-war South Caucasus
The Second Karabakh War ended with the signing of the trilateral declaration between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia on November 10,...
Vienna Process: Minilateralism for the future of Europe and its strategic neighbourhood
On the historic date of March 08th – International Women’s Day, a large number of international affairs specialists gathered for...
South Asia3 days ago
US-China Developing Confrontation: India and QUAD
Human Rights3 days ago
Migrants left stranded and without assistance by COVID-19 lockdowns
South Asia2 days ago
United States snubs India for its excessive maritime claim
New Social Compact3 days ago
Reform of mental health services: An urgent need and a human rights imperative
Eastern Europe2 days ago
A Grey Swan: Is There a New Conflict in Donbass?
Economy2 days ago
Innovative ways to resume international travel
Environment3 days ago
New project to help 30 developing countries tackle marine litter scourge
Russia2 days ago
Nobody Wants a War in Donbass