Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1873449169-scaled

What did Turkey gain from the Armenia-Azerbaijan war?

Turkey helped Azerbaijan win on the battlefield, but what Ankara stands to gain geopolitically remains to be seen.

Analysis | Middle East

In 2011, the International Crisis Group wrote that if a war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey risked being “dragged in” to the conflict. “Public pressure” might force Ankara to intervene in support of Azerbaijan, the ICG wrote, “contrary to [its] larger foreign policy interests.” As a result, Turkish officials were “doing all they can to persuade Baku war would be a ‘nightmare scenario.’”

Fast forward to 2020, and it is clear how much Turkish foreign policy has changed in the last decade. In the recent 44-day war, Turkey was far from a reluctant participant, and intervened enthusiastically in a manner that appeared very much in keeping with its newly defined interests.

When fighting began, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkey would continue to support Azerbaijan “with all its resources and heart.” That included a spike in arms sales: $77.1 million in September alone, Reuters reported. Chief among the weapons sold were Turkey’s indigenously produced drones, which, coupled with Turkish training and tactics, significantly bolstered Azerbaijan’s ability to inflict damage on Armenian forces. Turkey also transported hundreds of Syrian rebel fighters to the front lines to fight for Azerbaijan, though in the end this seemed to generate more international outrage than benefits on the battlefield.

All this is in keeping with Turkey’s broader foreign policy shift, which has increasingly prioritized the use of hard power, often in conjunction with local proxies, to alter regional dynamics in its favor. Convinced that the world is becoming more chaotic and more multi-polar, Ankara has emphasized its willingness to act independently of, or even in direct opposition to, its former Western allies while building a relationship with Russia that is simultaneously cooperative and competitive.

In the Caucasus, Ankara sought to replicate its formula for low-cost, high-impact interventions that it had already applied in northern Syria and Libya. A key difference is that Azerbaijan was a far stronger partner than the Turkish proxies in Libya and Syria, and so Ankara was able to achieve even more dramatic short-term gains. Nevertheless, it still faces the same unresolved questions and lingering risks posed by its previous interventions.

Azerbaijan has always enjoyed deep sympathy in Turkey, particularly among right-wing nationalists. It routinely tops surveys asking Turks which countries they consider friends, and the relationship is often described as “two states, one nation.” Demonization of Armenia and Armenians, of course, is equally widespread, spanning left-right and religious-secular divides.

But until roughly a decade ago, this nationalist alignment with Azerbaijan was offset by competing strategic impulses.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, an abiding caution continued to shape Turkey’s approach to Russia and the region it had controlled. Except where more immediate interests seemed to require it, Ankara preferred to act conservatively, in concert with its NATO allies and in defense of the status quo. So when fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia broke out in 1990, Ankara refused to become directly involved. Even as the war turned in Armenia’s favor, Turkey limited its actions to closing its border with Armenia and training Azerbaijani officers, while continuing to support diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict.

In the following decade, Ankara’s approach to the Caucasus became both more active and more independent. But this created a new set of economic incentives that gave Turkey an interest in peace and stability. The inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in 2005 fueled hopes that regional integration and new pipeline routes would complete Turkey’s transformation into a vital and profitable energy hub.

This dynamic vision, famously associated with former Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy, culminated in Turkey’s 2009 effort to normalize ties with Yerevan. When Azerbaijan, in concert with Turkish hardliners, scuttled this initiative, many in Ankara saw it as a regrettable victory of 20th-century nationalism over 21st-century enlightened self-interest.

In subsequent years, however, a number of unrelated developments took Turkish foreign policy thinking in a different, darker direction. The outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the violent return of Turkey’s Kurdish conflict and the 2016 coup attempt all contributed to Ankara’s perception that it was operating in a more hostile environment that called for a more aggressive response.

This perception drove Ankara to undertake a series of military interventions. Turkey has repeatedly launched major-cross border operations to check and then roll back Kurdish gains in Syria. In 2019, Ankara came to the aid of the Government of National Accord in Libya, helping it fend off an attack on Tripoli by forces backed by Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Then, in early 2020, when Russian-backed Syrian government forces attacked the final rebel-held pocket in Idlib, Turkey poured soldiers and armor into the territory in a (partially successful) effort to slow their advance.

These interventions, in turn, created the dynamic of cooperative competition that currently characterizes Turkish-Russian relations. By backing opposing sides in proxy conflicts, then working together to negotiate their resolutions, Moscow and Ankara have both gained influence at the expense of Western actors.

So even when Ankara’s gains have undercut Russia’s allies, Moscow has accepted, even welcomed, Turkish intervention in order to weaken American and European influence in Syria and Libya. Moreover, Moscow benefits because, to the extent it faces off directly against Turkey, it will always have the stronger hand militarily. This became clear most dramatically in Idlib last spring, when a Russian air assault killed 33 Turkish soldiers and prompted Turkey to seek a ceasefire on Russia’s terms.  

Against this backdrop, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict offered Ankara an opportunity to expand its relationship with Russia into a new theatre where it had a stronger hand. By changing what Galip Dalay has called the “balance of vulnerabilities,” Ankara hoped to gain leverage against Russia that it could perhaps use to its advantage in Syria or the Eastern Mediterranean.  

But even here, Azerbaijan’s clear victory on the ground did not provide the clear geopolitical benefits Ankara had hoped for. Russia did not offer Turkey a seat at the negotiating table and, contrary to optimistic reporting in the Turkish press, rejected the possibility of Turkish peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh itself. This means that even if Turkish support enabled Azerbaijan to retake the region, Russian cooperation will now prove more important to Baku in governing it.  

In short, while Azerbaijan is indebted to Turkey for its victory, Russia retains its role as the regional powerbroker. As a result, it remains to be seen whether Moscow will be any more accommodating of Turkish interests in Syria, or how Ankara can capitalize on its success moving forward. Facing a deepening economic crisis, Turkey certainly stands to gain financially, whether from reconstruction contracts or more preferential energy purchases. But beyond this, the war may prove the high water mark of Turkish influence in the Caucasus rather than the prelude to deeper involvement.

This article has been republished with permission from Eurasianet.

Nurlan Mammadzada / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest