This longitudinal study at the intersection of conflict studies and international relations aims to analyse the motives of the Russian Federation and its role in the preservation of the current status-quo of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The main arguments of the thesis derive from international relations theories (realism in particular) and the results put emphasis on geopolitical and economic incentives. Moreover, the thesis pays attention to the background of the conflict, as well as the relations between the three states. The general results can help to analyse other conflict in which the Russian Federation is involved as a third party.
The deep origins of the conflict can be traced to almost a century ago, when in 1921 (some sources suggest 1923 or 1924) the Soviet Union made Nagorno-Karabakh an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, although the majority of the population was Armenian. The first tensions arose during the 1970s and the Gorbachev`s policies of perestroika and glasnost during the late 1980s gave extra momentum of the Karabakh-Armenians` movement, which desire was to unite with the Armenian SSR. The demand of the parliament of Nagorno-Karabakh to unify with Armenia in February 1988 sparked Azerbaijani aggression and in result, inter-ethnic violence sharpened and militia groups in both republics started ethnic cleansings.
The conflict erupted in August 1990, when Armenia declared its independence from the Soviet Union, claiming the Nagorno-Karabakh region as its territory. In response, Azeri and Soviet troops tried to disarm Armenian militias in the region, which was accompanied by skirmishers along the Azeri-Armenian border and within the secessionist entity. However, in September 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh declared its own independence, fully supported by Armenia, whereas Azerbaijan proclaimed direct presidential rule over the secessionist entity.
The all-out war started with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the official independence of Armenia and Azerbaijan and lasted until May 1994, when a Russian brokered ceasefire was signed. However, over the next years fighting occurred periodically, despite the agreement, the diplomatic efforts and the meetings between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
Chapter 2: The Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
2.1 Concepts
2.1.1 National Interest
2.1.2 Spheres of Influence
2.1.3. Geopolitics
2.1.4. Conflict Stalemate
2.1.5. Conflict Management
2.1.6. Conflict Resolution
2.2. Literature Review
2.2.1. The Yugoslav War(s)
2.2.2. The Transnistria Conflict
2.2.3. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Chapter 3: The Theoretical Framework and Conflict Background
3.1. Theories
3.2. Background of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
3.2.1. Armenian-Azerbaijani Relations
3.2.2. Armenian-Russian Relations
3.2.3. Azerbaijani-Russian Relations
Chapter 4: The Analysis of the Russian Incentives
4.1. The Geopolitical Importance of the Caucasus for Russia
4.2. The Geopolitical Importance of the South Caucasian States
4.3. Channels of Russian Influence in the South Caucasus
4.4. Russian Economic Benefits from Maintaining the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
4.4.1. Russian Arms Selling Business
4.4.2. Russian Geo-energy Benefits
4.5. Security Dimension of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Conclusion
List of References
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This thesis investigates the underlying reasons for the Russian Federation's interest in preserving the status quo regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, utilizing international relations theories to analyze how this stalemate benefits Russian geopolitical, economic, and security interests.
- The application of realist international relations theory to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
- Examination of Russia's geopolitical interests and sphere of influence in the South Caucasus.
- Analysis of economic incentives, specifically arms sales and energy transit control.
- Assessment of the security dimension and the role of conflicts as a tool for regional influence.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.4. Conflict Stalemate
Conflict stalemate occur for four major reasons: the failure of contentious tactics, exhaustion of necessary resources, loss of social support and unacceptable costs. Conflicting parties cannot or are not willing to escalate the conflict, however this is not a guarantee that the involved parties are aiming at actions which will later result in an agreement. Even in the situation of a conflict stalemate, parties may develop tactics in order to prevail over the other party through different means. In theory, if both parties come to the conclusion that the conflict is intolerable, the risk and costs are too high or unacceptable and that the continuation of the conflict is more harmful than its solution, then, this situation may serve as the basis for conflict reduction or conflict resolution (Rubin et al. 1994: 151-152).
Furthermore, Brahm (2003) contributes for the concept, as he writes, that if the involved actors have political and/or economic incentives of prolonging the conflict, logically they will not work in favour of resolution. Another issue towards the settlement of a given conflict, which may arise, is that leaders may fear loss of confidence in their abilities if they work for a resolution, because it may result in the perception that persuading the conflict in general was a mistake. Moreover, long-lasting conflicts are characterised with a hostile socialization of the parties towards each other, which results in unwillingness to accept other side`s demands.
Another important aspect of conflict stalemate is identified by Zartman (2001). As he writes, conflicting parties may find themselves in a situation of a Mutually Hurting Stalemate (MHS), which is based on the notion, “[…] that when the parties find themselves locked in a conflict from which they cannot escalate to victory and this deadlock is painful to both of them (although not necessarily in equal degree or for the same reasons), they seek an alternative policy or Way Out.” (Zartman 2001: 8).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the thesis, which is to analyze the role of Russia in maintaining the Nagorno-Karabakh status quo, and identifies the research gap in using international relations theories to study this influence.
Chapter 2: The Conceptual Framework and Literature Review: The chapter clarifies essential concepts such as national interest, spheres of influence, and conflict stalemate, and reviews existing literature on the Yugoslav, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts.
Chapter 3: The Theoretical Framework and Conflict Background: This section establishes realism as the primary theoretical lens for the analysis and provides a historical and relational overview of the parties involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Chapter 4: The Analysis of the Russian Incentives: This chapter analyzes Russia's geopolitical, economic, and security-related motivations for maintaining the conflict in the South Caucasus, including arms sales and energy transit control.
Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes findings, asserting that preserving the stalemate serves Russia's national interests by reinforcing its role as a regional hegemon and preventing the influence of other global powers.
Keywords
Nagorno-Karabakh, Russian Federation, Realism, Geopolitics, Sphere of Influence, Conflict Stalemate, South Caucasus, International Relations, Energy Security, Arms Trade, Foreign Policy, Status Quo, Regional Hegemon, Security Interests, Post-Soviet Space.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work examines why the Russian Federation is motivated to maintain the current Nagorno-Karabakh conflict stalemate rather than pursuing a comprehensive resolution.
What theoretical framework does the author utilize?
The thesis employs the realist school of international relations, focusing on power, security, and national interests to explain state behavior.
What is the central research question?
The core question is: why is Russia interested in maintaining the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Which methodology is applied in the study?
The study uses a state-level analysis, deriving assumptions from international relations theories to interpret Russian behavior from the early 2000s to the present.
How does the author characterize the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
The author argues that it is not a "frozen conflict" but rather a situation of a "mutually hurting stalemate" that is actively maintained to serve the strategic interests of external actors, primarily Russia.
What role do the concepts of geopolitics and spheres of influence play?
These concepts are central to the analysis, as Russia views the South Caucasus as part of its "near abroad" and uses its position to counteract Western influence and secure its regional interests.
How does the arms trade influence Russia’s stance on the conflict?
Russia acts as the primary arms supplier to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, using the resulting armament spiral to increase its economic benefits and maintain leverage over both states.
What are the geo-energy benefits for Russia?
By controlling influence in the region, Russia prevents alternative energy pipelines from bypassing its territory, thereby protecting its position as the dominant energy supplier to Europe.
- Quote paper
- Simeon Ivanov (Author), 2018, The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Which Role Does the Russian Federation Have in Preserving the Stalemate?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/468582
