The case of Armenia, the ‘second Ukraine’

Letters from O'Brien #46

Few countries exemplify the real-world consequences of foreign interference and pressure than Armenia. Caught in the middle of east and west (and by extension all three of today’s major conflicts: Iran-Israel, Russia-Ukraine, China-West), Armenia has been crucial in connecting Russia with Iran. With a long history, this nation has been through many conflicts, and while small and often overlooked, it is far from insignificant. I will look at Armenia briefly, to help paint a bigger picture involving Russia and the West.

Armenia is the oldest Christian country in the world, and as a result it has faced significant trials over the centuries. Living within the Ottoman Empire, the Armenians faced mass persecution and genocide during and after World War 1, when the revolutionary Young Turks executed or expelled the entire Armenian population from their land. The Armenians resettled in what we know today as the nation of Armenia. Since that time, there has been an abundance of conflict and change - almost always involving the neighbouring Muslim nations of Azerbaijan.

Under Soviet control, Armenians were heavily discriminated against. The authorities - Soviet Azeris - forced Armenians to move and resettle, although they remained the primary people group in the region. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Armenian Republic received most of this land for itself. The most disputed region - known as Nagarno-Karabakh - has been the primary point of frustration. Despite being inhabited by ethnic Armenians, internationally the region was perceived to be part of an Azeri land claim. In response to these claims, ethnic Armenians created an autonomous state known as the Artsahk Republic. This naturally resulted in a series of conflicts over the following decades, and would culminate in the 2020 war, with Azerbaijan emerging on top. Armenia was under equipped and ill prepared for the fight. Using conventional weaponry, the Armenians were forced back by bomb drones and UAVs. The war would come to an end with the ceding of territory to Azerbaijan, which caused mass unrest amongst Armenians. In September 2023, Azeri forces launched their final offensive to take the region from the autonomous Artsahk Republic, and over 150,000 ethnic Armenians have since been ‘forcefully relocated’.

These events may seem like nothing more than the natural end of historical rivalries, but there is far more at play here. Against the will of the Armenian people, both the nations around them, global powers, and their own leaders work against their own best interest. I want to highlight what is happening here to show how the modern western strategy is perhaps best at escalating conflict.

THE INTERNAL THREAT

As with much of post-Soviet Europe, Armenia has been in the crosshairs of the West for some time, with the hope of bringing the nation under the ‘Western’ sphere of influence. Few figures exemplify this better than current president Nikol Pashinyan. Previously a pro-NATO politician, Pashinyan was far from popular. In 2018, Pashinyan would seize power after what he himself dubbed the ‘Velvet Revolution’, in which former president Serzh Sargentssyan was forced to step down. As with many such ‘revolutions’, the circumstances are suspicious, and the outcome predictable. Pashinyan now reigns as leader, despite being unpopular, and under his leadership several conflicts have started which potentially could have been avoided.

In 2020, open hostilities began to arise once again. This time, Azerbaijan was seeking to push further into disputed territories, leading to full scale war. During this period, Pashinyan was encouraged by many within the population to strengthen ties with neighbouring Russia. Despite mixed feelings about Russia amongst the population, the primary reason for some sort of cooperation was the possibility of security; if Russian ties were healthy, Azeri incursions into Armenia would be prevented. However, the Armenian government refused such relations.

A key moment came in 2022, with the so-called Prague Agreements. Here, the West attempted to bring peace to the region by having both Armenia and Azerbaijan agree on the legitimacy of the claim on the Artsahk region. Many in Armenia knew what this meant; signing away the lives of the ethnic Armenians who live in that area. That is exactly what happened; with the naive Western push for peace, Pashinyan officially legitimised the Turkish-Azerbaijani claim against his own people in the region. Armenia was thus left without any justification to involve itself in Artsahk, even if the Armenians in the region are oppressed.

In September 2023, Azerbaijan began its offensive into Artsahk, in what it deemed a ‘counter terrorist operation’. This operation claimed to be targeting Armenian outposts remaining in the region, although there is evidence suggesting this was untrue. Instead, reports began to emerge of bombings against civilians. Pressure once again fell on Pashinyan to respond with military intervention. Instead, the government suggested that the Russian peacekeeping force should deal with the problem - the same force which was severely limited in size due to Pashinyans refusal to restore ties with Russia. The result was predictable; the small Russian peacekeeping force in the region was not equipped for a battle and was thus unable to do anything. Protests against Pashinyan were expectably quick to follow, however in an interesting pivot, much of the blame was redirected towards Russia, not Pashinyans own inaction. This caught on, with some anti-Pashinyan protestors simultaneously claiming to be ‘anti-Russian nationalists’.

The feelings of Armenians and Azeris alike towards Russia appear to be very mixed. Both countries feelings towards NATO are very different. I will return to this later.

FOREIGN THREATS

Since the beginning of the Israel-Palestine conflict, there has been little news of this region in the media. This may change, as the Caucuses region is quite important, and has a direct connection to the middle eastern conflict. So how does this connect?

The Israeli view on Armenia is complex and difficult to wrap one’s head around. Despite being more ‘aligned’ with the Israeli worldview (than say a Muslim nation like Azerbaijan), Israel stands in firm opposition to Armenia. It refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and geopolitically aligns against it. In fact, it is known that roughly 70% of Azerbaijan’s weaponry comes from Israel, making them the primary backer of the Azerbaijani regime. But why would Israel back a Muslim nation? I have seen some Israelis claim that Armenia is a place of ‘historical antisemitism’, yet I find little evidence of this being anything more than an unfounded call for resistance against the nation. The more obvious point of contention is with Iran and Russia.

Added into the mix here is Azerbaijan’s most important ally; Turkey. Turkey is an interesting case, as it exists between the eastern and western spheres of influence. Turkey has held a grudge against the Armenian people for a long time, though not necessarily because of any alignment with Russia. Instead, this appears to be more an ethnic and historical grudge. This has naturally led to Turkey allying itself with the like-minded Azerbaijan, supplying them with weapons and other material and economic support.

It is here that bigger geopolitical motivations come into view. It is known that Israel (and by extension America) historically viewed Iran, Iraq, and Syria as the primary threats to its sovereignty. The American invasion of Iraq helped stifle any serious threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Likewise in Syria, Assad’s forces were drained fighting a war against both western-backed rebels and Islamic State. Israeli Defence Force chief Gadi Eisenkot admitted after the war that these resistance groups had been armed by them. Throughout this, the only stumbling block in the way of a Syrian or Iranian ‘capitulation’ has been Russia. In Syria, Russian units crushed resistance fighters, while their Air Force knocked out targets across the countryside. Thus, in the Middle East Russia is perceived as one of three players (the others being America and China) who are capable of making a nation ‘immune’ to defeat, if they wish. The latter events exemplify the initial point; that interference from the west has accelerated the potential for conflict, rather than helping to prevent it.

There still stands Iran, which is perceived by Israel to be their biggest threat. When it comes to Armenia, Iran holds an interesting stance. It has recognised Nagarno-Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory, yet it supports Armenia geopolitically. This comes down to the necessity of Armenia to facilitate trade between Iran and Russia. This further complicates Armenia’s position globally.

FOREIGN INFLUENCE

With both domestic and foreign threats considered, I will turn to what I have seen mentioned before; what appears to be the goal in the region. As mentioned, both Armenians current government and Azerbaijan lean towards NATO. Azerbaijan’s most crucial ally is Turkey, whilst Pashinyan appears to be pushing Armenia in favour of integrating into NATO. Using the tactic of blaming a lack of ‘Russian support’ for the ethnic oppression in Artsahk, Pashinyan redirects the Armenian population to call on NATO support to stabilise their region.

Consider what will happen if this is the case; the West has already made it obvious that ceding land to Azerbaijan will not be a problem so long as it results in ‘peace’, much in the same way that the Trump government aided the Ukrainian government with weapons to bring ‘peace’ to the breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. These solutions are momentary and often - like central planning - fail to consider the specificities which led to the issues in the first place. The Armenian region is no different; it is caught in an ethnic feud which cannot be properly understood by the West, who’s primary ambition is not to help the Armenian people but to achieve the geopolitical goal of cornering Russia. Nations such as Armenia (and Azerbaijan for that matter) serve as nothing more than chess pieces, thus the national interest of the Armenians will always play second fiddle to the global ambitions of greater powers.

ARMENIA TODAY

As of now, Armenia and Azerbaijan stand on the brink of another conflict. The previous war saw a bitter defeat for the Armenians, who were under equipped and underfunded. Going up against bomb drones and UAVs, the Armenian forces lost ground. Hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenians have now been displaced and are forced to leave their homes. As is so often the case, the reality is that this hardship could have either been avoided, or greatly attenuated. Since the president appears to serve abstract global ambitions, rather than national interest, these things were somewhat inevitable.

Even if Pashinyan is forced to step down, many predict his replacement will be Armen Grigoryan, whom - like Pashinyan - is a by-product of the Soros Open Society Foundation, and is thus inclined to prioritise ‘the open society’ and ‘modern liberalism’ over the wellbeing of his own people.

Part of my point throughout this has been to highlight not only how Armenia remains a ‘voiceless’ people, but also how the current polarity between the US and Russia benefits only a select few in the West, rather than acting as a net good for the populace. As has been shown to be the case in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, grand narratives such as ‘preventing Russian expansionism and influence’ are simply used to subvert the wellbeing of the native populations to adopt a polarised worldview which only serves a small elite class.

I am not trying to push a third-worldist argument or anything of the sort. I am however stating that an empire - like America - must justify their global ambitions. It is natural that an empire should wish to expand, but we should at least expect it to be ‘just’, lest it become as tyrannical as the tyranny it claims to be overthrowing. Beyond (what I believe to be) the more justified ambitions in Korea and Vietnam (as attested by many native survivors of communism), American Liberalism since the 1960s has bent towards unjustified global ambitions resulting in destabilisation - rather than strengthening - of foreign states without sufficient justification. Iraq, Ukraine, and in the future perhaps Armenia will all go down in history as examples of this increasingly unhinged worldview, which benefits few and works to the detriment of many.

Yours,

O’Brien