Center for Security Research Articles War in the Caucasus threatens Europe’s gas lifeline

War in the Caucasus threatens Europe’s gas lifeline

Aleksandar Nacev

International concern is growing over the rapidly escalating turmoil in the South Caucasus, as fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues and is threatening to draw regional powers directly into the conflict, destabilising an area that serves as an important energy corridor for global markets.

The clashes that erupted on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border are threatening to push the countries back to another prolonged war 26 years after the last ceasefire was reached. The last Nagorno-Karabakh War took place from February 1988 to May 1994, in the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave in southwestern Azerbaijan, between the majority ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh backed by Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

In 1988, tensions rose in the mountainous enclave, which was then still part of the Soviet Union. Armenians, who are the predominant ethnic group in the area, rose up to demand unification with Armenia. Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, took control of the region during a six-year war that claimed around 30,000 lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. The violence ended with a 1994 ceasefire that froze the conflict along a boundary, known as the line of contact, between the two sides. However, they never signed a peace agreement. Azerbaijan has long threatened to retake the region, which it considers to be illegally run by ethnic Armenians.

The conflict between these two former Soviet republics has wider geopolitical implications as Turkey, which shares a border with Armenia, is backing Azerbaijan, while Russia has called for a ceasefire. Another regional power, Iran—which has relations with both Yerevan and Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital—has called for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations.

Russia is by far the dominant military force in the Caucasus, and Moscow, which has close ties with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and regards the former Soviet republics as its backyard, has offered to mediate. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia will take a balanced position and will use its influence to calm the crisis. He also said that Russia would take a very dim view of involvement from other nations in the crisis, including Turkey which has pledged to back Azerbaijan, and called on all regional powers to exercise restraint.

On the other hand, Turkey, which closed its border with Armenia in the early 1990s in solidarity with Azerbaijan, has vowed to stand by Baku. Turkey regards the Azeri people as close kin, part of a Turkic brotherhood stretching from the Balkans to Central Asia. Following the July skirmishes between Baku and Yerevan, Turkey organised two weeks of land and aerial military drills in Azerbaijan. Turkey, which boasts the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s second largest army after the US, has shown that it can rapidly deploy military forces to the region, following its recent interventions in Syria and Libya.

In strategic and geopolitical terms, it is important to keep in mind the fact that the wider South Caucasus is a crucial artery for gas and oil from Azerbaijan into Turkey and on to Europe and other world markets.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan sought to export its oil and gas without relying on the Russian pipeline network. It attracted Western investors, laying a series of oil and gas pipelines allowing it to transport its energy from the Caspian Sea to international markets. Azerbaijan supplies about 5 per cent of Europe’s gas and oil demands (helping to reduce the EU’s dependence on Russia), and fighting in 2016 came close to a number of these pipelines.

One gas pipeline, completed last November, runs extremely close to the conflict front line and stretches across Turkey, and was a further demonstration of intentions to help ease Europe’s reliance on Russian gas imports. Protection of this vital corridor is important for European energy security and for ensuring the independence of the states in the region, which is why this energy and transit corridor has substantial geopolitical significance.

Europe must pay close attention to the developing conflict because of the potential loss of life and humanitarian crisis. Moreover, allowing Russia to gain greater regional influence will further limit European efforts to reduce its over-reliance on energy from Russia.

This article was originally published for Conservatives Global

Related Post

CSR was part of the research project on cyber bullyingCSR was part of the research project on cyber bullying

On January 31st 2022, three WEASA alumni members from different editions presented their research on cyberbullying in Macedonia and Serbia. One of the researchers was Oliver Risteski MA, our Head of the Department for Law Enforcement Research. The valuable piece of the research caught the attention of the attendees, who shared their appreciation and feedback after the presentation, and demonstrated their deep interest in the topic. The research found out that mostly women and underaged girls are under attack by ex-husbands or ex-partners/boyfriends who share personal photos online without their consent, conduct blackmail, and harass for revenge or other reasons. 

On the following link you can find the full research with the recommendations:

https://www.weasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Research-on-cyber-stalking-in-North-Macedonia-and-Serbia.pdf

At long last NATO has spotted ChinaAt long last NATO has spotted China

By Aleksandar Nacev, Executive Director of the Center for Security Research

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Meeting of Heads of State and Government in London in December 2019, Alliance leaders asked the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to undertake a Forward-Looking Reflection Process to assess ways to strengthen the political dimension of the NATO Alliance. To this end, in April 2020, Secretary General Stoltenberg appointed an independent Reflection Group, and tasked the Group with providing recommendations in several areas that are crucial to NATO and its essence.

After extensive consultations within and outside NATO, including with scholars, leaders from business and the technology sector, parliamentarians, military officials, and government representatives from all thirty Allies, most NATO partner states, and numerous international Organizations, the Group presented its final report, titled NATO 2030: United for a new era, to the Secretary General.

(more…)

When an order endsWhen an order ends

By Alessandro Politi, Director of the NATO Defense College Foundation

This article intends to discuss three points: the quest for a new world order, echoing the one established in 1945, is pointless; what should be done when an existing order cannot be adapted, and how the transition to a different order should be presently governed, taking into account also the new US administration.

The solutions proposed are to: adopt a flexible globalisation model where shared responsibilities and decision-making are realistically rebalanced; to refuse a fragmenting multipolarism; to relaunch global sustainability by redressing social imbalances at home and abroad in order to tackle climate change and to phase out an outdated model of consumerist capitalism. The overarching global priorities are essentially two: ensuring human security vis-à-vis climate change (and attendant pandemics) and favouring shared prosperity, which means the transition to a fairer hybrid economic system where economic policies are fully accountable to the taxpayer.

Will the Biden presidency understand these two strategic priorities? In short, the answer is: in word yes, in deed yo, with a strong tendency towards a no. Political handicaps in Congress and American socio-cultural conditions may significantly limit the President’s concrete choices, reducing complex decisions to a zero-sum game with China and risking an economic stalemate that could turn into hot confrontation. (more…)