Where will US flirting with Yerevan lead?
The most cunning are the first caught

ANALYTICS  26 September 2022 - 12:29

Does Washington keep Yerevan on the hook? Many foreign analysts link the intensification of contacts between the US and Armenia with the redistribution of geopolitical influence in the region, particularly with the weakening of Russia. What we need to understand is whether the new US game in the South Caucasus is disadvantageous or hazardous for Azerbaijan.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has indirectly accused the CSTO and Russia of passivity, thus launching an extremely dangerous process from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly. Armenian media report that the military expert, a reserve colonel in the Armenian Armed Forces Hayk Nahapetyan made the statement at a press conference. According to him, without naming, but de facto criticising Russia and the CSTO, Pashinyan invited an international observation mission to monitor the border regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan, saying it "will be an important factor in regional stability." Nahapetyan believes Pashinyan's statement at the UN General Assembly means an invitation to a UN peacekeeping force.

At the same time, he assures that if the involvement of an international peacekeeping force becomes a reality, the Armenian side will have to pay a high price for it.

"That price would be the withdrawal of the Armenian population from Karabakh, which would entail the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers; that would be followed by the withdrawal of the 102nd Russian base from Armenia and the provision of a corridor through Zangazur so coveted by Azerbaijan. Pashinyan's speech at the UN launched a process that will put an end to the Russian military presence," he said.

Pashinyan's meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was another evidence of the beginning of these processes, he said. Nahapetyan did not rule out that during that meeting the Armenian prime minister may have guaranteed the withdrawal of the Russian military base and Russian peacekeepers.

Either way, two important facts can't be disconnected: the increasingly frequent US contacts with Yerevan are in unison with Armenia's escalating provocations on its conventional border with Azerbaijan, which means there must be something common between the two. The July visit to Armenia by the head of the CIA, which many analysts have called "a bad omen" for the situation in the region, appears to have been a prologue to this.

In this sense, it is certainly important for Baku to look at the US potential goal: Washington needs the intensification of Armenian provocations in order to strengthen the US mediation activities in the South Caucasus by pushing Russia aside and, accordingly, to influence the positions of Yerevan and Baku. It is possible, however, that Washington aimed at something more – to pull Armenia completely out from under the wing of Russia, subjugating it to its influence, up to the withdrawal from the CSTO and the EAEU. In this sense, it is interesting that Washington can be both helpful and extremely dangerous for Baku. Because, as it can be seen from the ongoing events, the Americans do not disdain any tools in principle. And realising that the games in the OSCE MG are not serious at all, but rather serve to irritate Baku, which was also demonstrated by a useless visit of US Special Representative for the South Caucasus Reeker to Azerbaijan, Washington has clearly tried to influence Baku in another way, organising Pelosi's visit to Yerevan, which was openly anti-Azerbaijani in nature.

Here, Pelosi's visit appears as a key element of the US "dirty dancing". Alas, the definition of "dirty" clearly reflects the essence of the matter. Of course, it is impossible not to associate Washington's subsequent highly questionable "peacemaking" move - the organisation of a meeting between Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov and Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan in the United States. Given that it took place immediately after Pelosi's trip to Armenia, this US political scheme was probably an attempt to put pressure on Azerbaijan which has been reluctant to accept US mediation efforts, by the element of Pelosi's "visit". However, things clearly went wrong for the Americans, as Washington reported the meeting in extremely vague terms.

Taking into account the continuing provocations of Armenians on the border in the Kalbajar region, it can also be supposed that the US failed to find a common language on some issues with Baku too. Therefore, they gave Armenia the "permission" to continue provocations.

Meanwhile, Baku should proceed from harsh realities, namely: many external forces are not very satisfied with the complete peace between Baku and Yerevan.

As former Azerbaijani foreign minister and diplomat Tofig Zulfugarov noted in a recent interview with the Youtube channel "Modern conversation with Rasim Babayev", the West and other external forces are much more interested in the state of simmering conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where they could strengthen their presence in the region by playing on the parties' contradictions.

Meanwhile, all signs suggest very clearly that Yerevan is indeed aiming at a serious break with Moscow, and Pashinyan's latest statement at the UN does suggest an almost ripe desire to change its foreign policy course. Of course, it is unlikely that Pashinyan's invitation will result in the rapid deployment of any Blue Helmets into Karabakh, and even without Azerbaijan's consent, but the process of a fundamental rift in Pashinyan's interests with Moscow has certainly been launched.

And now Yerevan is facing a serious, one might say existential, the choice for its future statehood, since a possible escape to the West is fraught with very negative prospects for Armenia, and Pashinyan, with all his tendency to clown around, certainly understands that.

Even if we assume that Washington gave Pashinyan a trump card for severing nearly centuries-long close ties with Moscow, such as its great political support in the dialogue with Baku, alas, it is all a very obvious bluff, using which the US often solves many of its problems. After all, it is quite obvious that Azerbaijan, in alliance with Türkiye and Israel, has the strongest position in the South Caucasus, which can compete even with the influence of Washington, whatever plans it may have. It could also include very serious, strategic ties between Baku and London, which Azerbaijan has almost never tried to show off.

The South Caucasus is too far from the US, and all of Washington's proxy games in the region are clearly unsupported. Simply put, the game is not worth the candle. By the way, Washington has repeatedly demonstrated such behavior by advocating for one of the sides in the conflict in different parts of the world. Azerbaijan is not a socially untenable Afghanistan and Iraq that can flare up from within so that Washington can afford "something more" than pressure and proxy games with Yerevan behind Baku's back.

That's why now Armenia, making a "historic" decision on the campaign to the West and breaking off many agreements with Moscow, can find itself at the existential bottom in a moment - without the help of Washington on the one hand, and Moscow's outstretched hand on the other. That is why Armenian army reserve colonel Hayk Nahapetyan is so afraid of the consequences of Pashinyan's statements. All because the most cunning are the first caught.

Caliber.Az