2023-08-05 07:56:00
Author: Emin Sevdimaliev
For quite a long time, the Armenians, as well as the forces that sympathize and sympathize with them, have been intensively promoting the myth of the “blockade”. At the same time, the political establishment of Armenia is using, perhaps, the last of the mechanisms in its arsenal that have not been used before.
A lot has been written about this attempt to transform the existing situation, and video rebuttals have been shown, which give the most serious reasons to believe that this whole story is sucked out of thin air. But most analysts and specialists did not approach the issue systematically, analyzing the motivation and approach of the Armenian side. We will try to answer these questions in order to understand what and how Armenia was trying to achieve.
Another escalation
First, it would be naive to believe that negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia will be easy. This thesis confirms Yerevan’s model of behavior, or rather its changes over the past year.
Why Yerevan uses armed provocations during negotiations – ANALYSIS of the behavior model by Emin Sevdimaliev
Earlier, we described in great detail the reasons why Armenia (diaspora, government and separatists) goes for provocations and escalations. In the context of the escalations from Yerevan, the main reason is the use of provocation to manipulate and create the image of a victim. In Armenia, they believe that such an image will help to sway the opinion of Western politicians and society, which should eventually lead to the fact that other countries will be engaged in the protection of Armenian interests. Thus, the escalations and transformations promoted by Yerevan are designed to mobilize public opinion in the West with the help of Armenia’s “soft power”.
In this context, it is worth considering an attempt to promote the “blockade” discourse as a continuation of the previously described policy of Yerevan. However, it should be understood that not every escalation is an increase in the degree of physical violence. Escalation can also be verbal. And the attempt to “frame” the conflict with the help of the “blockade” escalation of Armenia is an excellent illustration of the previous argument.
But with the help of what mechanism is Armenia trying to make its plan a reality?
R2P is the problem child of the global community
If we figured out the purpose of the “blockade” escalation and the model of behavior of Armenia, then it remains to describe one element that will show us the full picture. Given the nature of the escalation path that Armenia has chosen, one UN mechanism comes to mind that was Yerevan’s last untapped argument, albeit inherently problematic.
Like many UN initiatives, Responsibility to protect (also known as R2P) was well-intentioned. The goal of R2P was to prevent the worst crimes such as human rights violations, genocides, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Probably, the reader has noticed that all these crimes fit perfectly into the narrative of the Armenian side and repeat the main theses that have been promoted by Yerevan in recent months in the context of the “blockade” argument.
In the context of the Responsibility to Protect, the global community assumes the responsibility to prevent the worst atrocities described above. The world community decided to use this measure once, in Libya, by authorizing a NATO mission to stabilize the situation in the North African country. The goals of the mission in a short time were transformed from noble to “geopolitical” – the overthrow of the regime. As a result, Libya has become even more volatile than it was before the intervention.
The global community quickly realized that R2P sounds great on paper, but there are significant problems with this approach in real life. The initiative threatens the key principle of international relations – sovereignty and non-intervention. As a result, the Libyan experiment led to heated discussions about the expediency of applying the mechanism in the future.
It is the infringement of the principle of sovereignty that is the key problem that Armenian propagandists do not take into account when promoting the myth of the “blockade”. By violating the principle of sovereignty, the world order and international law are endangered, which will lead to colossal chaos, which will significantly complicate the situation in a problematic, from a political point of view, geographical space. In addition, violation of this principle will result in “collateral damage” in other parts of the world and countries where there are separatist tendencies.
The second point, which allows us to say with confidence that the world community will not even think about embarking on such a crazy adventure against Azerbaijan, is very banal and obvious. There were no human rights violations and no casualties. Armenia resembles a boy from a fairy tale about a wolf, and no one believes her when the country announces another “wolf”. So far, there is not a single documented confirmation of Armenia’s accusations, while a mass of videos from social networks demonstrate the absence of any famine.
The third argument confirming that the world community will not seriously consider Armenia’s claims comes down to refusing to use alternative roads through which goods could be delivered to Karabakh on the territory where Russian peacekeepers are temporarily stationed. This situation in itself is paradoxical and, to put it mildly, raises serious questions.
These three arguments make it possible to say with confidence that the world community will not be led by Yerevan’s far-fetched arguments.
What options does Yerevan have?
The list of options for Armenia is very short. The Armenian residents of Karabakh do not have the luxury of choice and will have to accept aid along the route it can be delivered, not the route they desire. From the point of view of future regional processes, this will facilitate the process of integration of ethnic Armenians living in Karabakh into Azerbaijani society.
Given the limited room for maneuver, the reintegration process is the only viable alternative for Armenians, since an attempt by Armenians to use the “Responsibility to Protect” as an argument to put pressure on Azerbaijan will not lead to a positive result due to the problematic nature of this approach and the initiative itself.
Based on a rational approach, the analysis makes it possible to predict a very low probability of success of this approach, given the possible fundamental changes in the global system of international relations, in the hypothetical case of its success.
Integration is seen as a way out of the situation for the Karabakh Armenians. Perhaps it will start sooner than many people think?
#failed #strategy #blockade #escalation #Armenia