A war of geopolitical strategies: Project of Great Near East versus Euro-Asian Plan (second article)

***

The doyen of the world policy and former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski believed that participants of the new Near East were to consist of Euro-Asian Balkans, South Caucasus countries and the Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan). It is obvious that participation of Russia, Turkey and Iran was not provided.

What calls attention is the cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel unprecedented for Moslem countries. Note that details of this cooperation are not entirely open to the public attention. Few are aware f the fact that while at Baku Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu offered Azerbaijan to assume functions of mediator in resolving tensions between Israel and Palestine and Syria, Fatah and Hamas as traditionally dealt with by Turkey. Beyond any doubt, this tentative attempt was doomed to failure and could not give a positive result (Israel was well aware of it). The thing was to inform Ankara that its policy of strengthening positions in the Near East might be restricted to embrace areas of South Caucasus and Central Asia only.

Under this circumstance, little is known about the EP implementation which is indirectly illustrative of contradictions between the Astana three: Moscow is utterly anxious of Belarus developments, escalation of tensions in some regions of Russia (Khabarovsk), A. Navalny case, new sanctions and growth of isolation. With its deteriorated relations with Israel and undecided Kurdish question, Turkey has been involved in serious confrontation with Greece and Cyprus.

On the other hand, there is Iran that struggled the severest sanctions from the D. Trump administration. All three states are former empires facing various types of separatism and having their own Achilles’ heel.

It is common knowledge that a considerable part of contradictions of «three» is due to the technology of Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution in which Moscow, Ankara and Teheran are directly involved.

It must be acknowledged that summer military actions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border revealed Moscow and Ankara’s attitudes to the conflict and latter’ practical actions. Suffice it to note that Russia took the direct part in killing Azerbaijani servicemen, supplied Armenia with arms (most probably, free of charge) while Turkey held a position of unconditional military and political support of Azerbaijan. There is a further point to be made is that large scale military exercises under the aegis of Moscow, others under the aegis of Ankara proved to be a demonstration of the level of defense preparedness of the parties in emergency.

This notwithstanding, no inner history of such a polarization has so far been revealed, so it is no mere coincidence that mass media stressed the probability of the formation of a new formula of negotiation process (Russia-Armenia versus Turkey-Azerbaijan) directed to the replacement of all other «negotiators». If this is factually accurate, such a scenario is well within the EP context except for cases when it is necessary to identify Iran's stand on the issue.

There is a further point to be made is that formally this position lies in Teheran’s official aspiration to control tensions and avoid current conflicts’ transformation into war. It is for this reason that Iran stresses the necessity of political resolution to the conflict within the framework of interests of the two parties and their territorial integrity. For this to happen, Iran ready to act as mediator. It is in the interests of Teheran to prevent western military forces’ involvement in the conflict region and impede conflicting parties’ aspiration to use their territories in the aggression against Iran. In the meanwhile, Iran’s strength in terms of peace and weakness in terms of war lie in the fact that it is the only state having direct borders with Azerbaijan, Armenia and occupied Nagorno Karabakh.

At any rate, today’s security problems of Turkey and Azerbaijan have to be thoroughly analyzed and resolved within the framework of integrity approach, according to Kurshad Zorlu’s article titled «РKK is now in Nagorno Karabakh. Look at who is behind» (Habertürk (Turkey) (September 22, 2020). However, the integrity of this sort in terms of current circumstance provides for Russia’s and other centers of world policy’ involvement in the Karabakh conflict.

One cannot shut one’s eyes to the «games» of external forces who declare their «equidistance from parties to the conflict» but in fact pursuing their vested interests. That’s why mass media are spreading rumors about hirelings’ involvement in the last combat operations. Turkish mass media report on PKK terrorists’ deployment in Nagorno Karabakh via Iran while Saudi Arabian press inform about some hundreds hirelings  from Syria fighting on the side of Azerbaijan redeployed by Turkey to South Caucasus (Arab News: «Erdogan is advised to attack Yerevan and build a new Caucasus», September 28, 2020). Are the South Caucasian countries being involved in the PGNE? Is the policy of confrontation between Russia and Turkey being enforced due to the conflict?

It should be added that it was Mustafa K. Erdemol (Cumhuriyet, Turkey: «When it comes to the Karabakh issue, Russia tends towards Armenia, the USA – towards Azerbaijan». July 17, 2020).

It should be appreciated that prior to the current military confrontation Mustafa K. Erdemol prepared an inimitable resume on external actors’ attitude to Azerbaijan and Armenia: «The United States, Russia, EU are actors involved in the issue. These actors have incentives to face volatile situation rather tan stability». With that end in view Russia is supplying arms to both parties to the conflict while the EU is taking the situation in stride assuming that efforts aimed at containing the crisis in the region, and first of all Karabakh, will weaken Russia. For this reason, the EU took no serious initiative in holding ceasefire talks; in turn, the United States has taken no steps to guard interests either of Azerbaijan or Armenia.

In the meanwhile, a full scale war is underway in Nagorno Karabakh. The Armenian armed forces are suffering losses, according to Karabakh leader, Araik Arutunyan said on September 27. In his words, the question is about a full scale war running across the contact line of opponents. This is not April 2016. We are dealing with Turkey».

Under this circumstance, there are conditions leading to war crimes, including those against the peace population. When it comes to all stages of the Karabakh epopee, these criminal acts caused a sharp intolerance of the world community. That’s why it is essential to continue initiatives aimed at ensuring maximum safety of civil population and support of civilized forms of war pursuance.

Some analysts writing about the Karabakh issue (for example, S. Markedonov), paid attention to the fact that the  current stage of the conflict violated  «a pendulum action» under which periods of military escalation and peace talks followed each other. It should be realized that «a pendulum action» has finally been destroyed and needs a new technology. However, it will be made possible provided either party succeeds in reversing the situation.

We can but find out who and why gave blessing to the current military campaign. On the one hand, it is difficult to give a straight answer to this question where there are so many parties concerned; on the other hand, it is practically impossible to develop a pragmatic political line in emergency without post-mortem circumstances.

An impression is that the war of geopolitical strategies is still underway to involve new territories falling under the provisions of the Project of Great Near East (PGNE) and the Euro-Asian Plan (EP). At any rate, an undeniable fact is that the war has reached confines of South Caucasus. What is important to notice is that the best way for Azerbaijan in terms of war mobilization of society is country’s plastic transformation into consolidation of all political forces and social strata. Shall we see it come true someday?

Ali Abasov