European Union Policy in the South Caucasus after the Karabakh War of 2020
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2022-24-1-26-34
Abstract
The article focuses on the transformation of the European Union’s policy in the South Caucasus after the NagornoKarabakh war of 2020. Before the war, the foreign and security policy in the region had depended on the OSCE Minsk Group, Georgia’s role in the Russian-Georgian confrontation, and the Eastern Partnership program for the South Caucasus. After Azerbaijan won the Nagorno-Karabakh war with Turkey’s support, the previous line of policy stopped being effective. It failed to unite the countries of the South Caucasus, to remove the Russian Federation from the region, and to make the European Union a real mediator in the conflict zone. The democratization of the local political regimes also failed, despite the proEuropean position of Georgia and the velvet revolution in Armenia. As a result of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war of 2020, Russian and Turkish troops entered the South Caucasus, and Russia, Turkey, and Iran started acting as peace mediators. The European Union failed to strengthen the role of the OSCE Minsk Group and the mechanisms of the Eastern Partnership in the region. Ever since 2020, it has been trying to develop a common policy for all ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts in the postSoviet space. The European Union keeps failing in its competition and partnership with Russia, while Turkey is getting more active and independent in the region. Thus, the European Union will have to develop a new model of influence in the South Caucasus and the whole post-Soviet space. In the current global confrontation, it is very important to find an international actor able and willing to interact with all parties. The European Union seems to be the one, and its actions in resolving regional conflicts require a detailed research.
Keywords
Nagorno-Karabakh,
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict,
international relations,
foreign policy,
EU,
Armenia,
Georgia,
Azerbaijan
Supporting agencies: This research was supported by the Erasmus + Jean Monnet Chair "Russia and the EU: Issues of Partnership and Competition in International Relations" (612037-EPP-1-2019-1-RUEPPJMO-CHAIR). The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
References
1. Eurasian arc of instability and regional security issues from East Asia to North Africa, ed. Kolotov V. N. St. Petersburg: NP-Print, 2013, 576. (In Russ.)
2. Eurasian arc of instability and regional security issues from East Asia to North Africa: results of 2016, ed. Kolotov V. N. St. Petersburg: NK-Print, 2017, 832. (In Russ.)
3. Huntington S. P. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. N. Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1996, 368.
4. Dzhadan I. The Five-Day War. Russia is compelling to peace. Moscow: Evropa, 2008, 130. (In Russ.)
5. Toropygin A. V. Bishkek Protocol. How it was: memories and comments. Eurasian Integration: Economics, Law, and Politics, 2019, (1): 71–78. (In Russ.)
6. Garibov A. OSCE and conflict resolution in the post-soviet area: the case of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Caucasus International, 2015, 5(2): 75–90.
7. Bolgova I. V. European Union policy in the South Caucasus. Caucasian collection, ed. Degoev V. V. Moscow: Rus. panorama, 2008, vol. 5, 338–350. (In Russ.)
8. Uznarodov I. M. The European Union's policy in the South Caucasus in context of relations with Russia. Caucasology, 2018, (1): 208–222. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31143/2542-212X-2018-1-208-222
9. Yumatov K. V. The evolution of the European Union's policy in the South Caucasus. Tomsk State University Journal of History, 2012, (1): 126–131. (In Russ.)
10. Samutina O. S., Yumatov K. V. European identity and cultural frontiers in the context of ethno-political conflicts in the South Caucasus region at the end of 20th and beginning of the 21st century. To be European in Russia: pro and contra, ed. Akulshina A. V. Voronezh: VSU, 2017, 107–119. (In Russ.)
11. Yumatov K. V., Sivina K. N. The European Union and Russia in the South Caucasus in 2008–2020: a space of competition and partnership. History and Modern Perspectives, 2021, 3(2): 47–56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33693/2658-4654-2021-3-2-47-56
12. Yazkova A. A. EU and the South Caucasus. European Union in search for a global role: politics, economics, and security, eds. Gromyko Al. A., Nosov M. G. Moscow: Ves mir, 2015, 141–159. (In Russ.)
13. Barakhvostov P. A. The Caucasian dimension of the Eastern Partnership in 2009–2016. MGIMO Review of International Relations 2016, (4): 199–208. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2016-4-49-199-208
14. Howard G. Covering the perspectives of the US foreign policy in the South Caucasus. Caucasus International, 2017, 7(1): 11–20.
15. Markedonov S., Krizhanovskaya M. The terrorist threat in the North Caucasus has its specific prerequisites. Russian International Affairs Council, 5 Dec 2019. Available at: https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/interview/u-terroristicheskoy-ugrozy-na-severnom-kavkaze-byli-svoi-predposylki/ (accessed 8 Jan 2022). (In Russ.)
16. Markedonov S. M., Suchkov M. A. Russia and the United States in the Caucasus: cooperation and competition. Caucasus Survey, 8(2): 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2020.1732101
17. Danilov D. A. EU global strategy: eastern vector. Sovremennaya Evropa, 2017, (1): 10–21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/soveurope120171021
18. Galstyan Kh. S. Russia in Transcaucasia: mediating role in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Ten years of Russian foreign policy: Proc. First Convention of the Russian Association of International Studies, Moscow, 23–24 Sep 2003. Moscow: Polit. enstikl., 2003, 283–288. (In Russ.)
19. Iskandaryan A. Armenia – Turkey: divided by history, united by geography. The CAUCASUS-2006. CMI Yearbook, ed. Iskandaryan A. Yerevan: SMI, 2008, 228–242. (In Russ.)
20. Ibragimov R. Turkey – Azerbaijan relations and Turkey's policy in the Central Caucasus. Kavkaz i globalizatsiia, 2011, 5(3-4): 17–23. (In Russ.)
21. Çelikpala M. Turkey and the South Caucasus in 2009. CAUCASUS-2009. CI Yearbook, ed. Iskandaryan A. Yerevan: CI, 2011, 172–190. (In Russ.)
22. Khachatryan D. G. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through prism of Turkei-Armenian relations. Postsovetskie issledovaniya, 2018, 1(2): 223–233. (In Russ.)
23. Isachenko D. Turkey–Russia partnership in the war over Nagorno-Karabakh. SWP Comment, 2020, (53). https://doi.org/10.18449/2020C53
24. Avetikyan G. G. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war: the regional dimension. Pathways to Peace and Security, 2020, (2): 181–191. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2020-2-181-191
25. Miholjcic N. Trans-Caspian International Transportation Route: A way to steadfast economic development and connectivity in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. World of Diplomacy, 2018, (49): 134–140.
26. Eremina N. V., Kaledin N. V., Kuzmina E. M., Mikheeva N. M., Pritchin S. A., Shevchuk N. V. The role of Russia and the EU in conflicts and crises in the post-Soviet space: competitors or allies? Moscow: Znanie-M, 2021, 180. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.38006/00187-035-7.2021.1.180
27. Samutina O. S., Yumatov K. V. Information support of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict resolution activity by the EU observer mission in Georgia. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, (3-2): 298–303. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Yumatov K.V. European Union Policy in the South Caucasus after the Karabakh War of 2020. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2022;24(1):26-34. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2022-24-1-26-34
Views:
412
Email this article 