Armenia's hand left hanging in the air Maxim Petrov reveals the reasons

What lies behind the unwillingness of the CSTO to support Armenia? Russian political scientist and expert on the CIS countries Arkady Dubnov believes that the reason is not only and even not so much that "most of the CSTO countries are brought closer to Azerbaijan by religious and/or ethnic origins". Rather, it is that after the events in Ukraine, the countries in the bloc are increasingly focusing their policy not on Russia, but on Türkiye, an ally of Azerbaijan, including within the framework of the Organisation of Turkic States.

The reasons, perhaps, do not need to be explained. This does not mean that the CSTO will collapse tomorrow, but that is what it is. So why and for what reason would they quarrel with Azerbaijan? There is not a single reason why they would do such a thing.

By the way, why isn't Russia helping Armenia with more of what it's doing for it now? Because Russia is engaged with the Ukrainian issue. How will it help and how? Will it start a war with Türkiye and Azerbaijan? With what forces? Besides, Russia wants to cooperate with Türkiye, because this country, which has not joined the sanctions, is seen in Moscow as a possible window for Russian exports and imports, for capital investments; and the volume of Russian-Turkish trade is increasing rapidly. On the other hand, Russia also has excellent relations with Azerbaijan.

Why doesn't the West (not with words, but with deeds) help, or is its help meagre? Why would the West suddenly help a country that is a military and political ally of two countries hostile to it, Russia and Iran? The Armenian lobby certainly has some influence on the West's policies, but it cannot force it to act against its interests.

On the basis of all this, Pashinyan seems to understand the difficult situation he finds himself in. He has nothing to confront the Azerbaijani army with.

The Armenian opposition, for its part, cannot call up society to overthrow Pashinyan because it is not much popular. Although, if there is a spontaneous outburst of popular indignation, anything is possible. No one knows how another storming of the parliament in Yerevan may end. But let us suppose the popular masses bring down Pashinyan. What next? Will they go to war against the Azerbaijani army in droves? Will they fight the Solntsepyoks, Bayraktars, and Israeli heavy precision artillery? This is madness.

On the other hand, during her visit to Yerevan, Nancy Pelosi, US House Speaker representing the Democratic Party, criticized Azerbaijan's actions against Armenia and noted that "the US stands ready to support democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia."

To what extent do these statements reflect the real US policy in the region? I think this is no more than a politician's opinion. It has some value but is not likely to have a decisive influence on events in the South Caucasus. The US does not undertake any practical steps in support of Armenia today. What then is Pelosi's statement related to?

First of all, with the election battles in America itself. Mid-term elections are approaching, scheduled for 8 November. Voters will have to choose 35 members of the Senate and 435 members of the House of Representatives. According to some current projections, Republicans have a 74 per cent chance of winning a majority in the House of Representatives. US President Joe Biden has lost popularity and this has become a big problem for his party, the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi's trips to Taiwan and Armenia may be attempts by Democrats to demonstrate their flurry of foreign policy activity independent of the unpopular president. Pelosi is trying - without looking to Biden - to portray herself and her party as a global force fighting for human rights and parliamentary democracy around the world. But this will not necessarily have an impact on real US policy at the moment.