As Azeri troops blitzed Armenian separatist forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave on Monday, September 19, hundreds of Armenians besieged the presidential palace, calling for the “traitor” – as they called him – Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to resign.
It is recalled that with this limited “Blitzkrieg”, Azerbaijan – breaking through the lines of the Russian peacekeeping force, – forced the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which it had already detached after the victorious war of 2020, to officially join the Azerbaijan.
Back in Yerevan, however, the opposition and thousands of Armenians consider Pashinyan solely responsible for the new national defeat.
At the same time, however, Pashinyan’s government is turning its fire on… the Kremlin, accusing it of breaching its obligations. Since about 2,000 Russian peacekeeping troops are stationed in the region, Pashinyan believes they did nothing, paving the way for the Azeris.
It is not the first time that Yerevan seems annoyed by the Kremlin. Earlier this year Pashinyan had again expressed concern over the failure of Russian peacekeepers to take a more active role around the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, as Azerbaijan said time was running out for a lasting peace deal.
At the time, Yerevan demanded that Russian peacekeepers end the Azeri blockade of the only road connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. “We do not criticize the Russian peacekeepers, but we express concern about their activities, and this concern has long-standing roots,” Pashinyan said at the time.
Russian Nemesis?
Interpreting Russian “passivity” the EU official said that “a ‘cynical’ reason for Russia’s green light to Azeri forces was that a humiliating defeat by Azerbaijan could lead to Pashinyan’s downfall and his replacement by a pro-Russian prime minister.
The public position of the deputy chairman of Russia’s National Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, may seem to reinforce such an interpretation.
With the outbreak of hostilities, Medvedev posted the following on his Telegram account:
“Once a colleague from a sister country told me: ‘I am unknown to you and you will not accept me.’ I answered him as I should: “We don’t judge by resume, but by actions.” Then he lost the war, but surprisingly stayed put. Then he decided to blame his defeat on Russia. Then he surrendered part of his country’s territory. Then he decided to flirt with NATO and his wife ostentatiously visited our enemies with sweets. Guess what fate awaits him…” Medvedev commented.
The post definitely pictures Armenia turning its back on Russia, turning to the West. After the Azeri attack, moreover, Pashinyan received the support of the US, through a telephone conversation with Anthony Blinken, as well as Emmanuel Macron’s promise to convene the UN Security Council. In fact, Armenia – a country in Russia’s soft underbelly – made the mistake of participating in a military exercise with American forces.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has never accepted that Pashinyan came to power the way he did, in what you might call the Color Revolution. All referring to the 2018 Armenian revolution and other non-violent regime changes in the former Soviet region.
The war, moreover, could also push up to 200,000 refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia, a country of just 2.8 million people, adding a big headache for Pashinyan.
How much could the Russians intervene?
Of course, in contrast to this blaming Russia, the question is reasonably raised, how could Russia stop such an attack at the risk of getting involved in a conflict, from which the complaining Yerevan itself is far away?
But all Pashinyan himself did was to announce in his televised address that Armenia has no troops in Nagorno-Karabakh and is not participating in the talks, the outcome of which he was informed by the separatists.
Also, Nagorno-Karabakh, although Azerbaijan “brought it to its knees” with its blockade, causing a humanitarian crisis, is officially a part of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan himself has accepted post-war talks, and Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as connecting Baku with the Nakhchivan enclave through Armenian territory.
Russian peacekeeping troops, after 2020, have a limited mandate to intervene, without joining a defensive alliance logic.
After all, Russia is already focused on the war in Ukraine and an involvement in that region of Nagorno-Karabakh that connects with Turkey is not at all desired by the Kremlin.
But is the EU also to blame?
But if Russia facilitated the latest war and previous attacks, the EU has also done little to put pressure on Baku not to stoke new tensions. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently visited Baku to seal gas deals, calling Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, a “trusted partner.”
Asked on Wednesday 20 September if she regretted the new attack by Baku, von der Leyen refused to answer.
“It is a fact that Azerbaijan is a supplier of natural gas to the EU. There is energy cooperation, which is very sectoral and reflects the need to diversify the supply,” the Commission stated dryly.
Strongly criticizing the EU’s stance, French liberal MEP Nathalie Loiseau said that “for months, Azerbaijan has been causing starvation and bringing Armenians to their knees in Nagorno-Karabakh. Now it is bombing Stepanakert [the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh]. What have we [the EU] done? Mediation? A complete failure,” he said. “We ignored all the signs from the Armenian Prime Minister, who were telling us that Russia had left Armenia. Call for help,” he added. “We just turned a blind eye to it,” he pointed out.
