DRIFT WITH CONSEQUENCES

Apparently, the West intends to establish full control over the South Caucasus as part of its geopolitical strategy. That is why the US and the EU are openly flirting with Armenia, using it as a tool to realise their plans in pushing Yerevan into the orbit of Western influence.

Outpost leaving Russia?

The Armenian government confirms the country's drift towards the West by making regular statements on its dissatisfaction with the CSTO and Russia. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his people constantly underline the CSTO's failure to support Armenia in its confrontation with Azerbaijan. This is supposed to mean that Armenia expected its allies in this organisation, primarily Russia, to assist it in continuing the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. An occupation that ended with Azerbaijan's victory in the 44-day war of 2020.

In November 2022, Armenia did not sign the joint declaration of the CSTO Collective Security Council because it allegedly lacked a political assessment of the Azerbaijani "aggression". At the beginning of 2023, Armenia refused to hold previously planned CSTO exercises, and soon afterwards did not use its quota of deputy secretary-general and withdrew its representative to the organisation.

The hype around Armenia's participation in the CSTO intensified after Azerbaijan's anti-terrorist operation on September 19, 2023, which ultimately ended with the restoration of Baku's sovereignty over the entire territory of liberated Garabagh. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, Defence Minister Suren Papikyan, and Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan refused to participate in the CSTO summit and other related events held in Minsk on November 23. Moreover, as CSTO Secretary General Imangali Tasmagambetov reported on the eve of the summit, Yerevan asked the organisation's partners to withdraw the document on joint measures to assist Armenia from the agenda.

Does Yerevan's "offence" mean that it is ready to actually leave the CSTO and completely curtail its alliance with Russia, which must necessarily include the withdrawal of the Russian military base from Armenia and the cessation of border protection of the Republic of Armenia by the Russian border troops?

Shortly after his refusal to participate in the CSTO Minsk summit, Pashinyan said that he was not preparing the ground for Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO, because the ground "either exists or it does not". "We are simply giving both us and the CSTO time to think," Pashinyan stated. He added that Armenia decided to diversify its relations with external security actors.

Similar uncertainty remains around Armenia's participation in the CIS. In October 2023, Pashinyan refused to visit Bishkek for the meetings of the CIS Council of Heads of Government and the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council. Nevertheless, Pashinyan, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, agreed to participate in the upcoming informal traditional meeting of CIS leaders in St Petersburg at the end of December.

At the same time, it is clear that the Armenian leadership has definitely decided to move closer to the West, although it is still thinking whether to withdraw from the Russia-led institutions in the post-Soviet space. First of all, there is an expanding presence of the EU observation mission in Armenia's districts bordering Azerbaijan. On November 20, 2023, Yerevan and Brussels concluded an agreement on the status of the EU mission on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Moreover, it was decided to include representatives of Canada in the mission.

Thus Armenia expects to establish close military and political co-operation with the West for the same purpose that compelled it to use allied relations with Russia over the previous thirty years. Yerevan hopes that the US and the EU can now help Armenia in its confrontation with Azerbaijan instead of Russia. It is no coincidence that one of the key elements of this assistance is the purchase of Western arms and military equipment.

The West taking measures

France claims to be Armenia's number one military ally. In recent months, the countries have signed a number of agreements on the supply of French arms and military equipment to Armenia. These include air defence systems Mistral and multifunctional radars Ground Master 200. In addition, France already started the deliveries of armoured vehicles Bastion to Armenia.

However, the high cost of French weapons raises the question of Armenia's solvency. Previously, the main supplier of arms was Russia, which did this thanks to the loans issued to Yerevan. Later one some of these loans have been written off, so that Armenia received weapons and military equipment purchased from Russia practically for free. It is clear that France will not give its military products for free. Nevertheless, for the sake of bringing Armenia under its control, the West will undoubtedly find the necessary financial schemes to ensure its militarisation.

Although France positions itself as a vanguard of the West's Armenian endeavours, this process is supported, if not supervised, by the US. This was confirmed by the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O'Brien, who pointed to France's significant contribution to the efforts of Washington and Brussels "on additional measures to ensure Armenia's security".

Obviously, the intention of Western powers to ensure Armenia's security is seriously influenced by the domestic political factor. The Armenian lobby in France has long penetrated into the "brain" of the country's political elite. It has traditionally strong positions in the US, where the Armenian lobby is particularly active in the run-up to and during election campaigns. Washington is entering a new presidential race, one of the apparent manifestations of which is the hunt of the presidential candidates for Armenian votes. Pro-Armenian bias in the South Caucasus policy of the Joe Biden administration is associated with the upcoming presidential elections in the US. Yet geopolitical interest is the key point of American strategy, which to a large extent determines the strategy of the West in general.

Geopolitical factor

The main objective of the US and the Washington-led Western foreign policy in the South Caucasus is to displace Russia's traditional influence in the region in addition to undermining Iran's position and limiting Türkiye's ever-growing role in regional processes. As to Türkiye, they undoubtedly take into account its membership in NATO and allied relations with the US. But this does not diminish Ankara's solidarity with Moscow and Tehran in the sense that the latter, being the major regional players, do not accept the dominance of external centres, particularly the West, in the South Caucasus.

Tehran openly demonstrates its dissatisfaction with the West's ambitious and strategic presence in Armenia, since the consolidation of the positions of Washington and Paris, and thus of NATO, in Armenia clearly threatens Iran's long-term national security interests.

Meanwhile, the "additional measures" mentioned by O'Brien and pretended to "ensure Armenia's security" are aimed at establishing Western control over this country. The Assistant Secretary of State explicitly stated that Washington and Brussels are jointly developing a plan to bring Armenia closer to the transatlantic community.  This is clearly understood in Moscow: hence the statement by the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, that the West is "clinging to Armenia with a beastly grip, trying to tear it away from Russia."

In this case, however, Armenia risks becoming a testing ground for confrontation between the great powers. Many experts predict Syrian or Ukrainian scenarios for the country. But then all power centres should also take into account the position of Azerbaijan, which regards the provision of military aid to Armenia by the West as a threat to its national interests and security too. Therefore, Azerbaijan clearly states that, if necessary, it can always use its right to eliminate any threat posed by Armenia. Including the one that is being created with the assistance of the US and France, providing for the remilitarisation of the country crushed during the 44-day war. Indeed, arms and military equipment supplied to Armenia, which has yet to abandon its anti-Azerbaijani political agenda, automatically become legitimate military targets for Azerbaijan. Thus, Western aid to Armenia, provided to the detriment of Baku's interests, only hinders the peace process between the two countries.

Baku sets priorities

In becoming an arena of confrontation between the West and Russia, Armenia hinders the negotiation process with Azerbaijan in two ways. Firstly, it rejects the Russian negotiating platform. Secondly, it is trying to turn the Western negotiating platform developed through the parallel mediation of the US and the EU, into a tool of pressure on Azerbaijan. As a result, Baku abandoned the Brussels and Washington platforms, which have lost any value for the peace process when the West is engaged in a blatantly anti-Azerbaijani game.

Azerbaijan had to refuse to join the pentagonal meeting in Granada and trilateral talks in Brussels and Washington planned by Western centres. Since both the EU and the US are trying to push provisions infringing on Azerbaijan's sovereignty and aiming to interfere in its internal affairs into the negotiation process to be finalised with a peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan. There are attempts to bring the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, which ceased to exist as a result of the 2020 war, back into the discussion. Moreover, these attempts are taking place amid the rabid anti-Azerbaijani campaign launched by the Western centres and their unjust and fundamentally false accusations against Baku, which has restored its sovereignty over the whole of Garabagh and put an end to the separatist regime as a result of a one-day anti-terrorist operation.

In their pro-Armenian stance, the US and EU move away from the principles of neutrality and impartiality, which deprives the West of any grounds for continuing mediation. However, Yerevan does not seem to have given up its intention to use the Western centres that are eager to mediate to strengthen the Armenian position in the negotiations with Azerbaijan. Armenian pro-government and political expert circles are promoting the idea of the need for guarantors to implement the agreements that can be reached during the negotiation process. But this issue has a flip side: what is the supposed status of guarantors for the Western mediators themselves, who are considered as such by Armenia?

Obviously, becoming guarantors of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia means that the West has a serious lever to assert its geopolitical dominance in the South Caucasus. Therefore, the US will continue its attempts to resume the Azerbaijani-Armenian negotiation process under the auspices of Western institutions. This is confirmed by the statements made by the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on November 27 to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

However, Baku has clearly set its priorities: the success of the peace process depends on Armenia's real readiness to make peace with Azerbaijan on the basis of mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This implies, in particular, the de-occupation of eight Azerbaijani villages still under Armenian control. Moreover, the conclusion of a peace agreement is practically unthinkable in a situation where Armenia is obediently playing the role of a tool in the hands of certain global power centres. Especially if this instrument is directed against Azerbaijan. The latter factor leaves Armenia with neither a chance for peace nor even its very existence.