Confrontation between France and Turkey in Transcaucasia could provoke a split in the European security system
Azerbaijan said on September 19 that it had launched an anti-terrorist campaign against the militarized groups of Nagorno-Karabakh – the region which is subject of the Azerbaijani-Armenian disputes. A day later combat operations were stopped as a result of the agreement according to which the pro-Armenian paramilitary groups of Nagorno-Karabakh assumed the obligation to disarm.
Meanwhile the President of France Emmanuel Macron in the end of August announced his intension to introduce new initiative on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Later the leader of France made a round of telephone calls to Transcaucasia countries’ heads and discussed problems of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Karabakh. First of all it is connected with blocking local transport corridors by participants, first of all by Azerbaijan.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory, unrecognized republic in Transcaucasia in which ethnic Armenians live. In spite of the fact that this area is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh has declared independence at the end of 1980 – the beginning of the 1990th years and since then it is de facto controlled by Armenia and the pro-Armenian local forces. In 1992 the OSCE Minsk group for peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was created, France, the USA and Russia became her cochairmen. Results of activity of this diplomatic format are characterized by noticeable contradictories: despite the formulating of number of effective scenarios of permission of ethnopolitical disputes in Nagorno-Karabakh, the region repeatedly became the arena of fierce military operations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The last large armed conflict has happened in the fall of 2020 during which Baku has established control over the most part of Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent territories.
France’s desire to reinforce its position as the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and a mediator in the Baku-Erevan negotiations fits into the picture of modern strategic equation in Eurasia. First of all, it is caused by the weakening of Russia due to its continuing war in Ukraine. The Armenian prime-minister Nicol Pashinyan underlined it in his interview to Italian newspaper La Republicca. «Armenia’s security architecture 99,99% was linked to Russia, including in the logic of procuremnet of arms and ammunition, but today we see that Russia itself is in need of weapons, arms and ammunition and in this situation it’s understandable that even it wishes so, the Russian Federation cannot meet Armenia’s security needs», - said the prime-minister.
In the light of above, the Armenian leader announced reforming of Yerevan's policies in the area of security, thereby anticipating forecasts of experts about gradual separation of the Transcaucasian republic from Russia that will automatically cause restoration of relations between Armenia and the euroatlantic community. «Now Armenia neither in economic nor in any other plan is not of interest to Russia» - Pashinyan said in already mentioned interview to foreign journalists.
The increasing of anti-Russian sentiments in the Armenian political elite becomes the reason for strengthening the positions of European countries in region. While having close historical ties with Armenia France is the most obvious favourite in a rush to have influence over Erevan. But today interstate solidarity transforms into direct military support. Few months earlier Paris sent 50 armored personal carriers to Armenia and 170 French MPs called the government to increase the amount of support being provided to Erevan. This was followed by regular contacts between representatives of the military departments and personal meetings of defense ministers. At the same time, the media have repeatedly leaked information about the probability of French offensive arms export to Armenia (MLRS, attack UAVs, etc.).
Focusing the attention of the French authorities on the Karabakh problem is motivated by several reasons. First of all, it is the influence of a strong Armenian diaspora in France which is also very good in lobbying for the interests of Yerevan with its so-called agents of influence. The representatives of Armenian community have a leading position in the French National Assembly, major media companies and expert communities. This is important but not the key factor.
More obvious reason of shifting Macron government to Karabakh problem is the desperate effort of France to restore its political reputation after a series of failures in foreign policy. And Armenia plays the instrumental role in Paris’s geopolitical ambitions. The leaders of Transcaucasia republic realize it but this way they are trying to harden its negotiating positions with Azerbaijan and Baku’s ally – Turkey. As for Macron, his government after a number of failures in Africa (withdrawing from Mali, weakening its influence in Niger) goes right through and invades Transcaucasia, region of Turkish unique influence, while Ankara remains France’s ally in NATO.
Macron’s policy of growing influence in the South Caucasus can be described as a play «all in». The French leader decided to make such a radical decision because of painful mistakes of its internal politics (price rising, inflation) and gross domestic failures on the international scene. France, torn by internal contradictions, is unlikely to defeat Turkey in the struggle for Transcaucasia. Now Macron’s actions look more like an adventure doomed to failure.
Another political flick on France’s nose gives an impetus to systemic crisis of institutes in the Fifth Republic. And while France remains one of systemically important EU countries, aggravating of its inner problems will inevitably cause destabilization of sociopolitical situation in whole European community.
But the much bigger concern is caused by the possible complications in international policy connected with the French-Turkish confrontation in Transcaucasia. If the contradictions between France and Ankara reach a critical level, it will inevitably cause a split in the southern flank of NATO. This situation could lead the weakening of the political and military institutions of the North Atlantic Alliance, which has recently been undergoing severe hardship due to the war in Ukraine.
At the same time the French-Turkish relations are already complicated by serious disagreements on key questions of the international and regional agenda. Erdogan is angry about Paris’s refusal to support membership of Turkey in the EU, and also uncompromising stance of the Elysee Palace in question of support of territorial integrity of Cyprus and its firm solidarity with Greece in its disputes with Ankara around the water area of the Aegean Sea. The French political establishment cannot forgive Erdogan for his contempt for interests of France in the Middle East and in North Africa. The list of mutual claims and two-edged offenses between partners in NATO is impressive and gradually continues to be replenished with new miscommunications.
But the real drama, comparable on tragic scales with the Russian-Ukrainian war, can turn around in Transcaucasia. Deliveries of the French weapons to Armenia cause rage of the authoritarian leader of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and his ally – the rigid and wayward president of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is unlikely that cunning leaders of Turkey and Azerbaijan will quietly wait for that moment when Armenia with assistance of France rearms the army and the militarized groups of Nagorno-Karabakh under its control.
They will not wait when Erevan challenge to Azerbaijani-Turkish tandem to take revenge for defeat in armed conflict in the fall of 2020. Far from it. Baku and Ankara, for certain, will take the lead and under dummy pretexts initiate military operation against Armenia in aspiration to inflict over it the maximum defeat from which the Armenian nation will not be able to entirely recover, at least, in foreseeable historical perspective. And events in Nagorno-Karabakh on September 19-20 convincingly support this view. This time the fire of war managed to be extinguished, however there is no confidence that the flame of bloody armed conflict will not inflame again.