It is the anniversary this month of the complete liberation of Karabakh by the armed forces of Azerbaijan. Most of the regions of Azerbaijan taken by Armenian forces between 1991 and 1994 were reclaimed in November 2020 by the Azerbaijanis during, and as a result of, the 44 Day War. The rump of the former Armenian-occupied area then completely collapsed over the course of 24 hours on 19^th/20^th September 2023 as a result of a lightning military operation by Azerbaijan.

Practically the entire Armenian population, numbering between 70,000 and 115,000 people, left the region of their own volution, deciding not to remain under the authority of Azerbaijan. Since then there has been a degree of repopulation of the region with the Azerbaijanis who were forced out 30 years before and the opening of a new university. Probably only a comprehensive peace settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan would encourage a return of the Karabakh Armenians to their homes.

In a book I finished writing nearly three years ago I speculated that the loss of the occupied territories in and around Karabakh would be a good thing for Armenia. I was therefore intrigued to hear similar sentiments from the Armenian commentator Richard Giragosian on the Californian-based diaspora channel CivilNet recently.

Giragosian did not say such a thing directly, of course. No one expects an Armenian to do so. But the overall impression one would get from listening to his interview was that Yerevan was getting its act together as a state, having shed the problems associated with illegally occupying the territory of a neighbour for 30 years.

Giragosian described an Armenian policy that is based on a more realistic assessment of reality these days. He talked about the Armenian “pivot to the West” describing it as not a replacement of Russia with France and the United States but essentially a re-balancing. In this he suggested that Armenia had learnt the tragic lessons of Georgia and how open hostility to Moscow and flirting with the West had brought upon disaster for Tbilisi. In short, Russia was too important, particularly economically, to abandon for Armenia. He hinted also that those who hoped for a Russian collapse had been disappointed by the turn of events in Ukraine, clearly in Moscow’s favour. So what Armenia was actually doing presently was re-balancing its relations and re-asserting its sovereignty against Russia for the first time in a generation.

This is actually the point that the present writer made in the book. Armenia in pursuing the conquest of Karabakh, and occupying it for a generation, had placed its destiny in the hands of Russia. It had subverted its own independence after the collapse of the USSR by what it had done in taking Karabakh by force, cleansing it and surrounding areas of its Muslims, and occupying it in defiance of international law. Instead of emerging as a normal independent state with functional relations with East and West it had developed an unhealthy relationship of dependency upon Moscow. It had spoiled relations with Turkiye to its West which was the gateway to Europe. And it could only keep hold of Karabakh through a debilitating relationship between its Karabakh Clan oligarchs whose heroic status enabled them to poison the Armenian body politic with self-serving corruption, and the Kremlin.

Ironically the Azerbaijani victories of 2020 and 2023 relieved Yerevan of these malevolent forces and enabled the new direction to emerge.

Giragosian described the Armenian pivot to the West as also a Western pivot to Armenia. The former advisor to the US Congress noted that for Washington Armenia was not a vital interest. US interest in Armenia was mainly related to internal Congressional politics, in ensuring votes from the diaspora in California and Boston. The current US engagement in the South Caucasus was largely driven by events in Ukraine. The US has entered a vacuum in the South Caucuses created by Russia’s distraction in the Ukrainian war. Azerbaijan had used this distraction to retake Karabakh while Armenia had used it to break free of Russia.

Giragosian stated that “democracy protection is the foothold for the US” in Armenia. As a part of this the new Western thrust into the region is all about military assistance for Armenian defence. Commenting on recent statements from Baku about Armenia purchasing weapons from various countries, Prime Minister Pashinyan recently stated that while Armenia is developing military-technical cooperation with new partners, such as France and India, and building a new professional army, these military reforms are purely of a defensive nature. He further elaborated: “We are saying: our issue is the protection of our sovereign territory of 29,743 square kilometres, a right guaranteed by the UN Charter. The UN and other international organizations require the state to ensure the safety of its citizens. And we will fulfil these obligations.”

Pashinyan emphasized that Armenia recognises the territorial integrity of all countries, including Azerbaijan, in the region, and has no longer any territorial claims against anyone. Referring to the strips of strategic land inside Armenia currently held by Azerbaijan’s armed forces as a preliminary to the retaking of all of Karabakh last year the Armenian PM noted: “More than 200 square kilometres of our territory are occupied, but the Armenian government does not intend to reclaim these territories through military means.” He has also indicated his wish to change the Armenian Constitution on this matter, although a rather long drawn out process is envisaged that will not be helpful in the short-term for a comprehensive peace settlement.

The US has announced that it is also willing to provide a new nuclear reactor to replace the Chernobyl era Metzamor nuclear power plant in Armenia so that Armenia’s energy dependence on Russia will be rolled back. Giragosian, however, advised his audience not to expect too much from Washington. Hopes had been raised in Armenia to far too optimistic levels by Nancy Pelosi who broke with US policy in ignoring Baku and visited only Yerevan a couple of years ago and the recent blanking of Baku by Antony Blinken. These were warning shots fired by Washington at Azerbaijan for its increasingly tight relations with the Kremlin but they did not mean long-term commitment to Armenia, advised Giragosian.

Giragosian was more hopeful about the European Union’s increased engagement of the EU in the South Caucasus. Giragosian described the EU as Armenia’s greatest hope since Brussels was, for the first time, matching its words with action with the unprecedented entry of EU observers into the region. The EU has become more assertive and less timid and is acting in conjunction with the US as the spear-tip of Western soft power in the region.

Giragosian notes that EU values are much more attractive to Armenia than Russian ones. Armenia believes itself a European civilization and the development of democracy in the state is the key to Armenia’s advantage over Azerbaijan in relation to Washington and Brussels. Giragosian believed that the future was bleak for both Azerbaijan and Georgia who were, he argued, increasingly in the grip of Russia. He believed that democracy and the strengthening of parliamentary institutions was the most useful objective of the present Armenian government.

Giragosian, however, is exaggerating any great shift from the balanced foreign policy of the Azerbaijan government. The Azerbaijan government under the leadership of the Aliyevs rebalanced the relations of the state from 1994 after the previous Popular Front government of Elchibey had inclined too much toward the West and had been punished by Boris Yeltsin with military assistance to the Armenians, enabling them to win the First Karabakh War (1991-94).

The 2020 liberation of the territory lost in that war could never have been recovered by an anti-Russian government in Baku. The Kremlin would have blocked it militarily and the West would never have facilitated it, due to its latent sympathy toward the Armenians as well as the influence of their lobby in the US and France. If anyone doubts the sympathy that Armenia has in the West the storm of protest in the UK after the British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, correctly described the recovery of Karabakh by Azerbaijan as a “liberation” should be a salutary lesson. One wonders why these Britons, mostly of a Conservative Party disposition, do so much in support of Ukraine when they do not support a state liberating its internationally recognised territory.

Furthermore, the recovery of the full territory could only have been accomplished by a government which had a realistic understanding of Russian power and its weaknesses. And this only came from Heydar Aliyev, the senior Politburo figure and his son, Ilham, with his Russian background.

The US knows there is much to play for in the South Caucasus, despite Azerbaijan’s victories being achieved through collaboration with Moscow, Armenia’s CSTO ally (Armenia has suspended its participation in the CSTO in protest at Russia’s collaboration with Baku) and the signing of an alliance between Moscow and Baku on the eve of the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine. Patrick Pryor, head of the European-Eurasian regional center of the US Department of Defence’s intelligence unit, visited Azerbaijan in September and met with presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev. Pryor chose not to visit Yerevan. This was followed in October by high-ranking officials from British and American intelligence agencies visiting Baku. According to the Turan news agency, the purpose of MI6’s Richard Moore’s visit was clearly not just to give a university lecture at ADA:

“It is highly likely that he will hold talks with the country’s leadership on international and regional issues. It’s no surprise that he may have delivered certain messages from influential circles and governments in the West. The discussions probably involve relations with Russia and Iran, as well as the war in Ukraine.”

The visit of MI6’s chief to Baku occurred just a week after his meeting with the head of the CIA, William Burns, in London. The Financial Times published an article signed by Moore and Burns on the threats to the Western international order. In that article, the two heads of the Western intelligence services stated: “The world order is facing a threat not seen since the Cold War” leading to London and Washington actively collaborating “to create a united front to counter Russia’s aggressive actions and Putin’s war in Ukraine.”

It is possible that the visits are to do with security at the upcoming Cop29 during November in Baku, but they were also timed just after Vladimir Putin’s visit to Azerbaijan in August, and the West’s perception of Russia’s efforts to control the Zangezur Corridor intensifying. The Zangezur Corridor is a key part of the Eurasian Middle Corridor, and neither the US nor the UK wants transport routes from China to be controlled by Russia’s FSB, as the 2020 Trilateral Agreement makes provision for. The West is probably exerting pressure behind the scenes in order to prevent this Eurasian development, even relying on Iranian opposition to block it.

What all this suggests, however, is that Armenia, freed from its territorial ambitions last year, is beginning to form more realistic views of itself and its region and develop more along the lines of a functional state. That, of course, is to be greatly welcomed as long as it persists. Hopefully it will lead to a comprehensive peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the near future.