


































Advances in Politics and Economics 
ISSN 2576-1382 (Print) ISSN 2576-1390 (Online) 

Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape 

14 
 

Original Paper 

New Geopolitical Realities in the Armenian-Azerbaijani 

Confrontation and Prospects for the Development of 

Cooperation 

Prof. Dr. Chingiz Ismayilov
1*

 

1
 Baku State University, Azerbaijan  

*
 Prof. Dr. Chingiz Ismayilo, E-maill: ischingiz@gmail.com 

 

Received: May 14, 2023         Accepted: June 25, 2023        Online Published: July 03, 2023 

doi:10.22158/ape.v6n3p14            URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ape.v6n3p14 

 

The formation of new sovereign states in the post-Soviet space took place under very difficult 

conditions of aggravation of ethnic conflicts, deterioration in welfare and a sharp drop in the standard 

of living of people. Under these conditions, ethnic conflicts began to act as the most destructive forces, 

the foundations of which were laid by the policy of tsarist Russia, and later continued by the leadership 

of the Russian state. So, over the past 200 years, the Russian leadership, in accordance with its 

geopolitical interests, has consistently and purposefully changed the ethno-confessional map of the 

Caucasus. For example, by settling Kuban Cossacks on the historical lands of Chechens, Ossetians on 

the lands of Ingush, Armenians on the lands of Azerbaijanis and Ubykhs, Georgians on the lands of 

Meskhetian Turks and Abkhazians, etc., Russian politicians have created “time bombs”, i.e., areas of 

potential ethnic conflicts. 

The ethnopolitical map of the modern Caucasus was largely formed at the beginning of the twentieth 

century, as a consequence of the results of the military confrontations between Russia and Turkey. 

During this period, the Armenian Republic was established on the historical lands of Western 

Azerbaijan, with the support of tsarist Russia, which later expanded geographically at the expense of 

the new territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In 1923, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region 

(NKAO) was established on the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, where Armenians mainly lived. 

The Autonomous Region had great privileges, the top officials in the leadership of state structures were 

predominantly Armenians. Azerbaijanis living in the NKAO, whose share in the population was 25%, 

held the positions of deputy leaders of Armenians. Despite the fact that Armenians lived mainly in 

mountainous areas in the NKAO, their standard of living was much higher than in the mountainous 

areas of other regions of Azerbaijan and Armenia itself. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Territorial claims of Armenians against Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia have deep historical roots. The 

historical myths invented by the Armenians themselves about “Great Armenia, from the sea to the sea”, 

did not give a rest to the nationalist Armenians. Armenian national chauvinists, fueled by the support of 

the Armenian Diaspora, repeatedly raised the issue of the annexation of the NKAO to Armenia over the 

past century. The collapse of the Union and the civil confrontation in Azerbaijan created conditions for 

the military aggression of Armenia and the subsequent occupation of the NKAO and 7 administrative 

districts around it, the area of which was 3 times larger than that of the territory of the region itself. Of 

course, Armenia would not have been able to occupy such a vast area on its own. In the confrontation 

with Azerbaijan, Russia provided direct military assistance to Armenia, not to mention the fact that the 

Russian military fought on the side of the Armenians. Iran also, due to its own geopolitical interests, 

provided direct economic and humanitarian assistance to Armenia. Without the help and support of 

Russia and Iran, the Armenian side would not have been able to annex 20% of the territory of 

Azerbaijan. 

During the occupation of the Azerbaijani lands, Armenia fully used both the military and political 

support of Russia and other “geopolitical players”, who continued to use it as a puppet to solve their 

own problems. This situation remains unchanged to this day, as exemplified by the policies of Russia, 

France, Iran, and other Western countries in the region. It is important to find the reasons for the 

“coincidence” of the geopolitical interests of these countries in the region. The answer lies in the 

historical past of the region, where the interests of the collapsed Ottoman Empire collided with those of 

the above-mentioned group of countries. At the beginning of the twentieth century, these countries 

skillfully used Armenians as an instrument of internal counteraction to the Ottomans, which resulted in 

an inflated myth about the Armenian genocide. Historical facts show that mass violence and brutality 

on the part of Russians, Turks, Persians, Arabs, and other conquerors were experienced by almost all 

the peoples of the Caucasus. However, the Caucasian mentality did not allow them to tell the whole 

world about the long-suffering of their people. Only the Armenians shout to the whole world about 

their bitter fate, which once again confirms the fact that the Caucasus was not a place of residence of 

Armenians in the historical past. At the same time, a characteristic feature of the majority of Armenians 

is their aggression towards the Turkic peoples, as evidenced by the numerous terrorist acts carried out 

against statesmen, politicians, and diplomats of Turkey and Azerbaijan. 

A very well-known Western scientist Erich Fromm in his work “The Anatomy of Human 

Destructiveness (1), trying to uncover the causes of human violence, identified different types of 

aggression, where a special place is given to the characteristic of destructive aggression. This type of 

human aggression is distinguished by the desire of a group of individuals to carry out destructive acts. 

It is enough to look at the numerous destructions of settlements, villages, cultural, historical and 

religious centers in the occupied regions of Azerbaijan to understand the degree of hatred of Armenians 

towards everything Azerbaijani. Moreover, almost all the destructive actions and mass looting of 

Armenians in the occupied areas were carried out after the cessation of fighting’s in the early 90s. This 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

behavior of Armenians is a consequence of many years (including the Soviet period) of anti-Turkish 

propaganda and education of young people in the spirit of hatred towards Turks and Azerbaijanis. 

Nowadays, hatred towards Azerbaijanis and Turks continues to be methodically instilled in Armenian 

children in families and schools. Such education, albeit in a hidden form, was also in Soviet times. 

Therefore, it seems difficult to expect any changes in building interethnic relations with Azerbaijanis in 

the near future. 

No less interesting was the part of E. Fromm’s work where group narcissism was considered. It is the 

Armenian ethnic group that can be characterized by group narcissism - this is something from the series 

“my nation (or religion) is the best!”. With all this, Armenians have managed to present themselves for 

a century as a “long-suffering people” who were subjected to genocide by the Turks. Based on these 

postulates, the Armenian leadership built its foreign policy, which, of course, necessitated the 

development of adequate responses from the neighbors. 

 

1. Liberation of Azerbaijani Lands from Armenian Occupation 

It is no secret that Russia has played a leading role in the ongoing military-political and socio-economic 

processes in the region over the past centuries. As a result, a modern geopolitical picture of the region 

was gradually formed. The basis of Russia’s military-political doctrine in the post-Soviet space has 

been and remains unchanged - the provision of military and economic presence in each of the 

neighboring republics. In the new sovereign republics, such an approach in building interstate relations 

was not always welcomed. Among the republics of the South Caucasus, only Armenia has expressed its 

desire and support for the presence of a Russian military base on its territory. Time has shown that the 

invented “horror stories” about the military threat from Turkey turned out to be just a myth. Unlike 

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, from the first days of the restoration of sovereignty, expressed 

unwillingness to see Russian military on their territory, which resulted in Russia’s support for 

separatism in these republics. 

The occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent regions of the republic by Armenia took place 

in conditions of continued civil confrontation in Azerbaijan. The military-political support of Russia, 

the economic support of Iran and the misinformation of the world community about the ongoing 

conflict by the pro-Armenian media of the West played a key role in the occupation of the historical 

lands of Azerbaijan. 

Azerbaijan has been trying for 28 years, on the basis of international law, to peacefully settle the 

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Karabakh. However, Armenia sought to permanently preserve this 

issue, and to annex the occupied lands of Azerbaijan to its territory. This was evidenced by the 

statements of the Prime Minister of Armenia N. Pashinyan: “Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) is Armenia, 

and full stop” (2). Such a statement became the point of no return to any negotiations with Armenia 

regarding the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. In addition, the Armenian leadership, confident in its 

abilities, began to flirt with the West and pursue an anti-Russian policy. This created prerequisites for 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

conducting military operations to liberate the occupied lands from Azerbaijan. Thus, Azerbaijan began 

to independently solve the task of implementing the adopted 4 resolutions of the UN Security Council 

on the liberation of the occupied lands of the country. According to the results of the 44-day war, 

Armenia actually signed a surrender pact on November 10, 2020 and subsequently withdrew its troops 

from the rest of the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. 

The appearance of the Azerbaijani army on the state borders with Armenia and the restoration of the 

territorial integrity of Azerbaijan significantly changed the alignment of geopolitical forces in the 

region. The de-occupation of lands and the Russian-Turkish political and economic rapprochement 

affected the interests of Iran and a number of Western countries. Therefore, as the subsequent course of 

events showed, the subsequent elimination of disagreements and the achievement of a peace agreement 

between the conflicting parties became a difficult task. The current leadership of Armenia seeks to 

internationalize the post-conflict situation in the region and therefore seeks to ensure the presence of 

observers from the European Union. As a result, under the guise of European civilian observers, former 

employees of the French gendarmerie and German special forces appeared in the border zone of 

Azerbaijan. It is not difficult to guess that the Russian side was not happy with such behavior of the 

Armenian leadership, because Russia’s geostrategic interests were touched upon here. Turkey was the 

only regional country that provided political and moral support to Azerbaijan. The historically fraternal 

relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan have played a positive role in the military operation to 

liberate the occupied lands from the Armenian occupation. 

 

2. Why Were International Efforts to Resolve the Conflict Not Successful? 

In 1992, the OSCE Minsk Group was established to lead the search for a solution to the conflict 

between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia, the USA and France were chosen as 

co-chairs of the Minsk Group. However, during the 28-year period of its “activity”, it “failed” to solve 

the task. Despite the fact that in 1993 the UN Security Council adopted 4 resolutions on the 

“withdrawal of Armenian military formations from the occupied regions of Azerbaijan”, the Minsk 

Group Co-Chairs did not make proper efforts to implement the adopted resolutions. Therefore, now the 

attempts of the Armenian side to reanimate this structure causes only a grin. An analysis of the course 

of geopolitical processes in the region allows us to conclude that none of the Minsk Group member 

countries was interested in a fair resolution of the conflict, namely, in the de-occupation of Azerbaijani 

lands. The current situation fully corresponded to the geopolitical interests of these countries. The 

Russian side sought in every way to ensure its presence and geopolitical influence in Azerbaijan, which 

was confirmed by the course of further events in the region. The Armenian Diaspora in these countries 

has always exerted great pressure on the American and French leadership, so it seemed unlikely that the 

issue would be resolved in favor of Azerbaijan. Based on this, practically no one in Azerbaijan took 

seriously the various meetings and vague “initiatives” of the Minsk Group co-chairs aimed at resolving 

the conflict. In the context of this, it is appropriate to recall a quote from Henry Kissinger’s doctoral 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

dissertation. He argued that “legitimacy in international affairs is based on establishing a balance 

between powerful States, not on promoting justice.” It is not difficult to understand that if the 

geopolitical interests of a strong state with great influence in the region are not taken into account, it is 

difficult to ensure peace and harmony there. 

Since the beginning of the 90s, the Iranian side has been conducting an ambiguous and hypocritical 

policy in the region. Iran, while verbally declaring support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, has 

in fact always provided political and economic support to Armenia. At the same time, the facts of 

illegal exploitation of pastures and agricultural lands of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan by both 

Armenians and Iranian entrepreneurs were confirmed. During the military operations to liberate 

Azerbaijani lands, the Iranian side, under the pretext of advancing its peace initiatives, sought in every 

way to slow down the process of de-occupation and expulsion of Armenian military formations from 

the territory of Azerbaijan. After the victorious 44-day war of the Azerbaijani army and the liberation of 

the occupied territories, Iran began to openly conduct an anti-Azerbaijani policy in the region. The 

armed attack on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran, the murder and wounding of two employees, the 

illegal supply of fuel to Armenian separatists, the conclusion of an agreement with Armenia on the 

supply of weapons, official statements on opposition to the opening of the Zangezur corridor and other 

statements by Iran testify to Iran’s policy against Azerbaijan. 

Armenia, in the face of real threats of losing its territorial integrity, was forced to sign an agreement on 

the cessation of military resistance. However, the question arises - how much can the Armenian side be 

trusted? The historical experience of relations with Armenians shows that trust in Armenians has 

always cost Azerbaijan dearly. So, after the bloody massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenians in March 

1918 in Baku, about 12 thousand of its inhabitants were killed within a few days. These and other 

numerous facts of massacres of residents of cities and villages of Azerbaijan (in Shamakhi, Guba, 

Lankaran, Ganja, etc., settlements) by Armenians were later practically erased from the memory of the 

people. On the one hand, the Soviet government forbade the discussion of these historical facts, and on 

the other hand, the Azerbaijani people have never been distinguished by their nature for cultivating 

hatred towards other peoples, which cannot be said about the Armenians. This can explain the overall 

concern about the current state of development of relations with Armenians. Having forgotten the 

treachery of the Armenians in recent history, our descendants may again face aggression from Armenia. 

Evidence of this is the relentless revanchist sentiments among a significant part of the Armenian society. 

Despite the official statements of the Armenian leadership about the desire to sign a peace treaty with 

Azerbaijan, it would be naive to believe in the truth of their intentions. It would be appropriate to recall 

the statement of N. Pashinyan, who in one of his speeches in 2022 openly said - the peace treaty is just 

a piece of paper for me. 

Armenia is still trying to use all the opportunities of its diaspora (informational, political, financial, etc.) 

in foreign countries to solve its own nationalist plans for the alienation of Azerbaijani lands. In 

accordance with this, the current leadership of Armenia is striving in every possible way to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

internationalize the post-conflict situation and attract more “observers” from foreign countries. Another 

proof of this is the organization, at the request of the Armenian side, of another observer mission 

consisting of 100 people from among the former military and police sent by the EU to the border areas 

with Azerbaijan. The purpose of this activity is already long-term (within 2 years). The mission is to 

monitor the military-political situation in the border areas. It is not difficult to guess that former 

employees of law enforcement agencies (French gendarmerie and German special forces) will mainly 

collect the necessary data for the relevant departments of their countries. It should be noted that before 

that, the European mission, which consisted of only forty observers, was in the conflict zone at the end 

of last year, and their presence was limited to two months of presence in the border zone. 

The EU’s desire to support Armenia’s initiatives is largely due to the growing pro-Western sentiment in 

the country. The penetration of the Armenian lobby into practically the structures of the Russian 

leadership (informational, political, military, financial, scientific and technical, etc.) has significantly 

complicated relations with Azerbaijan. Russia played a decisive role in the Armenian occupation of 

Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions of Azerbaijan. After a 30-year policy of supporting Armenia, 

Russia finally began to realize the importance of its own national interests and therefore changed its 

policy towards Azerbaijan. The subsequent change in Russia’s policy and its “non-interference” in 

conducting operations to liberate Azerbaijani lands clearly reflected Armenia’s real place in the 

military-political map of the region. 

The official authorities of Russia declare that they want peace in the Caucasus, but, with the provision 

of their own geostrategic interests. At this stage, Russia’s main task is to maintain the presence of its 

military bases and “peacekeeping forces” in the region. To achieve this goal, all levers of 

military-political and socio-economic influence on the leadership of the republics are used. 

The course of the Georgian-Russian armed conflict in 2008 and the current military operations in 

Ukraine revealed the essence of the ongoing geopolitics of the West in the post-Soviet space. The 

Western world is concerned about the development of Russia and the desire to maintain its dominant 

presence in the post-Soviet republics. The use of military force on the part of Russia, in solving its 

strategic tasks, has practically nullified political relations with Western countries. 

However, in the formation of the current geopolitical picture of the post-Soviet space, great political 

miscalculations of the leaders of Western countries played a role. The Western world, providing huge 

dividends from doing business with Russia, did not pay due attention to the growing tension in its 

relations with some neighboring republics (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan). In all these 

republics, separatism was supported by Russia. Attempts by the West to create some parallel structures 

(GUAM, the EU Eastern Partnership project, etc.) to support the newly formed republics were not able 

to solve their pressing political problems. The Western world reacted very cautiously to the military 

invasion of Georgia by Russian forces, which became one of the factors that led to the possibility of a 

large-scale war in Ukraine. 

The main miscalculations of Western strategists regarding the vision of the geopolitical situation in the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

post-Soviet space are the insufficiently deep study of the mentality of the peoples living in this region. 

The policy pursued by Western countries towards the post-Soviet republics shows that underestimating 

the uniqueness of the current economy, the peculiarities and traditions of local peoples, the nature of 

relations with neighboring countries does not give the desired results. The use of double standards in 

the political decisions of Western countries has led to a fading interest in assessing the values of 

“democracy” countries. Therefore, most of the new sovereign republics are in search of a new way (not 

a Western model) of their future development. 

The use of double standards by the West was clearly manifested in the process of the growing 

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Thus, after the occupation of Azerbaijani lands, about 4,000 residents 

were killed, captured and reported missing, and after the cessation of hostilities, hundreds of historical 

and cultural monuments were purposefully destroyed by Armenians. Despite the repeated appeals of 

the Azerbaijani side to international organizations and to the leaders of leading Western countries with a 

request to facilitate the release of the captives and clarify the issue of the fate of the missing, practically 

nothing has been done in this direction. However, we saw a different attitude of the West after the 

liberation of the occupied lands. Thus, the hysterical appeals of Armenians to the West to put pressure 

on the Azerbaijani side in order to release prisoners of war who illegally entered the territory of 

Azerbaijan after the surrender of Armenia were immediately heard by them (suffice it to recall the 

resolution of the European Parliament of May 20, 2021, calling on Azerbaijan to release Armenian 

prisoners of war and other detained persons). At the same time, the liberated Azerbaijani territories 

were stuffed with hundreds of thousands of mines purposefully left by the Armenian occupiers. And 

despite the repeated appeals of the Azerbaijani side to the leaders of Western countries to provide mine 

maps from Armenia, the issue has not been resolved for a long time. Azerbaijan, in exchange for 

Armenian prisoners of war, received 1/5 of the maps of minefields. At the same time, international 

organizations, groups of scientists and politicians of the West began to raise universal noise about the 

“genocide” of Armenians, about the destruction of “the most ancient” cultural monuments. It’s amazing, 

but where were these government officials, politicians, cultural figures when the Armenians destroyed 

nature, culture, ancient monuments, religious centers in the occupied Azerbaijani lands? There are 

many examples of such a policy of double standards that reflect the true core of modern Western 

democracy. 

 

4. Post-Conflict Situation and the Feasibility of Signing a Peace Agreement 

With the end of the hostilities in Karabakh, the possibility of reviving the liberated lands arose, in 

particular, reconstruction work on the construction of transport infrastructure, housing and social 

facilities. Thus, it was necessary to create the necessary conditions for the return of refugees to their 

native lands. For this purpose, the Government of Azerbaijan allocated funds in the amount of $6.6 

billion from the republic’s budget for the period 2021-2023. 

In a short period, a huge amount of construction work was carried out. While the Azerbaijani side 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

directed its main forces and resources to the revival of the liberated territories, Armenia, with the tacit 

support of the Russian “peacekeeping forces”, transported armed detachments and ammunition to the 

zone of compact residence of Armenians in Karabakh. At the same time, the illegal export of mineral 

resources from the Karabakh mining fields to Armenia continued. The open “plunder” of Azerbaijan’s 

natural resources, the illegal passage of Armenian militants into Karabakh and the intensification of its 

militarization contradicted the interests of Azerbaijan, therefore, such an escalation of the situation in 

the region could not last long. Despite the repeated official appeals of the Azerbaijani side to the 

leadership of the “peacekeeping forces” and the Russian authorities, practically no changes have 

occurred. In this regard, the leadership of Azerbaijan has openly stated the need to create checkpoints 

on the border with Armenia. 

In accordance with this, on April 23, units of the State Border Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan 

(SBS of the Republic of Azerbaijan) established a border checkpoint on the sovereign territories of our 

country, on the border with Armenia, at the beginning of the Lachin-Khankendi road. According to the 

statement of the State Border Service of the Republic of Armenia, the border checkpoint was 

established “in order to prevent the transfer of manpower, ammunition, mines, as well as other military 

equipment from Armenia to illegal Armenian armed formations on the territory of Azerbaijan.” At the 

same time, the creation of the checkpoint is a response to the establishment by Armenia of a border 

checkpoint at the entrance to the Lachin road on the border with Azerbaijan. It is hoped that with the 

beginning of ensuring control over the movement of cargo and residents of neighboring areas, a barrier 

will be established for the supply of weapons to the Karabakh area where Armenians live, and the 

illegal crossing of the border by militants from Armenia will also be prevented. 

Along with carrying out measures to restore the economy and administrative management in the 

liberated lands, negotiations on the establishment of peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia were held 

at various levels. The main mediators in these negotiations were the EU, Russia and the United States. 

As before, the mediators of these negotiations, generally wishing to establish peace between Azerbaijan 

and Armenia, at the same time seek to ensure their own geopolitical interests in the region. Based on 

this, in 2022, the West and Russia separately offered the parties different options for a peace agreement. 

In the variant proposed by Russia, the issue of the “status of Karabakh” should have been preserved for 

future generations, which corresponded to the interests of Armenia, but in no way to the interests of 

Azerbaijan. Thus, the Russian side once again demonstrated its desire to ensure its military presence in 

the region. The inclusion of this issue in the protocol of the agreement practically meant laying a “time 

bomb” in the continuation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict for future generations of the region. 

The past century-long period of cultivating hatred of Armenians towards Azerbaijanis and the results of 

opinion polls conducted in Armenia by international organizations show that revanchist sentiments in 

the republic and the intensity of separatism among Armenians in Karabakh still remain the dominant 

component. In this regard, the words of former Armenian President Kocharyan are indicative, who 

openly stated that “Azerbaijanis and Armenians cannot live together.” 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape            Advances in Politics and Economics                Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The West’s proposal to finally sign a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia without including 

the Karabakh issue was very constructive. Resolving this issue on the basis of compliance with 

international legal norms can help reduce the intensity of tensions between the conflicting parties. In 

this regard, the statements of President I. Aliyev and Armenian Leader N. Pashinyan on mutual 

recognition of the republics within the borders of 1991 seem important. Thus, favorable conditions 

have developed for the final signing of a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which 

may be prevented by the “emergence” of another round of conflict of interests of the main geopolitical 

players in the region. 

 

References 

Erich, F. (1992). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (p. 576). New York: Henry Holt. 

Peter, V. (2023). Henry Kissinger at 100: How will history judge him? – GLOBALBAR Magazine. 

Retrieved from https://globalbar.se/2023/05/henry-kissinger-at-100-how-will-history-judge-him/ 

Пашинян, Н. (n.d.). JAM news. Retrieved from https://jam-news.net/ru 

 

 

 


