FeaturedSpecial Reports
US Strategic Interests in the South Caucasus and its Post-2020 War Policy towards Armenia
By Yeghia Tashjian, M.A., Benyamin Poghosyan, Ph.D., Michael Rubin, Ph.D.
In the wake of President Joe Biden's affirmation of America's renewed engagement on the global stage post-2020 elections, U.S. foreign policy faces a complex landscape in the post-Soviet space, underscored by the tension between democratic ideals and authoritarian forces. Historically, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States fostered warm relations with Russia and the nascent independent states,
Or, subscribe now for unlimited access
By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
This is not a criticism. I am not qualified to criticize. But it is one of bewilderment.
After a lengthy analysis I read a list of recommendations.
1. 1. “The State Department should increase humanitarian aid to Armenia refugees from Artsakh.” Why should it?
2. 2. “The U.S. immediately and openly should endorse the right of return for Armenia refugees from Artsakh.” What about if it does not endorse.
3. 3. “The State Department should recognize that the indigenous population of Artsakh maintains its right of self-determination.” What about it does not recognize as it has not since the great exodus from Artsakh.
4. 4. “Artsakh Armenians establish a government-in-exile to represent the interests of Artskah Armenians in future negotiations.” But with due respect, Artsakh Armenians had a government in Artsakh and no government recognized it.
5. 5. There are “should do”s here as well.
6. 6. There is a “U.S. must first demand” here.
7. 7. There is a “U.S should recognize” here.
Is this what strategic planning is all about?
Is this how our strategy is laid down, by laying down what a superpower – U.S. – should or must do for our benefit? Maybe it is and I have remained ignorant.
Well written, the main article has a tone of entitlement to it. The point about Arktash government in exile is valid after all when it was a functional entity it had no international recognition as a government so expecting such credentials when it’s collapsed is extraordinary.
More US/Western involvement in the south Caucasus = more disaster for the entire region. We are where we are because of the Western factor in the region. You people did enough damage to Armenia with your “commentary politics”. Please go back to your diasporan lives. Let the region’s powers sort things out.
You DIasporan Armenians with your Phds and Masters need to go back to wherever your homes are and stay there.
99.99% of Americans cannot find Armenia on a map.
The idea that America will ever come to Armenia’s rescue is ludicrous.
The Diaspora has caused enough trouble already.
Pahinyan is your man.
Just stay quiet for ever.
Turkish-Armenian normalization is not impossible, but it will not happen before Azerbaijan and Armenia sign a peace treaty. Azerbaijan is too important for Turkey to alienate over normalization with a country that does not serve any purpose geo-politically or economically. Armenia has no strategic value for Turkey’s geo-political vision when compared to what Azerbaijan brings to the table.
Furthermore, the Second Karabakh demonstrated how beneficial a conflict can be in the region for Turkey. Not only did it increase Turkey’s presence in the Caucuses but also affected its image in Central Asia. Another advantage of the short war was it was the perfect test bed to demonstrate Turkish weapons in an interstate war. Exports of TB2 and other Turkish weapons systems blew up after the cease fire.
So I cannot see how normalization can be possible without Azerbaijan or what benefits it will bring Turkey.