Follow us on social

2022-10-31t190215z_567939562_rc2icx923ttp_rtrmadp_3_armenia-azerbaijan-russia-talks-scaled

Azerbaijan exploiting Ukraine distraction to press advantage in Armenian conflict

But that doesn’t mean the United States should try to replace any Russian role there.

Analysis | Reporting | Europe

Traffic through the Lachin Corridor — the only route connecting the contested region of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia — has been blocked by Azerbaijani self-proclaimed environmental activists for a fifth day. This closure creates a potential humanitarian crisis for the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, as they are cut off from medical and food supplies from Armenia, which they are entirely reliant upon.

The roadblocks, which protesters claim are in response to illegal mining practices in the region, represent the latest escalation in tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan in recent months. Most notably, in mid-September, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces clashed both around Nagorno-Karabakh and on the countries’ border, with Azerbaijan escalating the situation by attacking Armenia proper.

Both September’s attacks and the present roadblocks are symptoms of a troubling reality for the Caucasus: that Russian weakness resulting from its struggling invasion of Ukraine has opened the door for renewed conflicts and border disputes in the region. Russia, which has long filled the role of regional hegemon, has stationed peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin Corridor since the devastating Second Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020.

Azerbaijan is utilizing Russia’s present distraction to press its advantage in its simmering conflict with Armenia. Indeed, the current roadblocks are at least partially aimed at pressuring the small and ill-defined Russian peacekeeping mission, with protesters demanding greater Azerbaijani access to Nagorno-Karabakh and a meeting with the commander of the Russian forces.

For the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, conditions will only get worse as long as the blockade persists. Azerbaijan also blocked gas supplies to Nagorno-Karabakh, but following strong international diplomatic pressure recently reversed this decision. But should the roadblocks persist in the long term, there may be few options to resupply the territory, as civilian air traffic in and out of the territory has been blocked since the 1990s. Meanwhile, the de facto government in Nagorno-Karabakh is increasing its calls for an international humanitarian airlift to supply the blockaded territory.

So far, the United States and its international partners have responded by issuing diplomatic calls to end the roadblocks. The U.S. State Department issued a statement via Twitter calling on the “government of Azerbaijan to restore free movement through the corridor.” The EU issued a similar comment, calling on “Azerbaijani authorities to ensure freedom and security of movement along the corridor” given that such restrictions “cause significant distress to the local population and create humanitarian concerns.”

The United States may have a meaningful, if limited, role to play in ending the present crisis and preventing the renewed outbreak of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Washignton played an important role in bringing the two nations to ceasefire after Azerbaijan’s September incursions, a notable departure from the 2020 war in which Russia brokered the truce.

Yet, as Anatol Lieven and myself recently pointed out in a brief for the Quincy Institute, this does not mean that the United States should make an effort to supplant what security role Russia has left in the Caucasus. The United States is rightly resistant to committing its forces to the region, and this effectively prevents it from serving as security guarantor there.

Instead, the Biden administration should continue its wise course of diplomacy. The United States should work to de-escalate the crises in the South Caucasus through diplomatic means while engaging appropriately with all local actors and stakeholders. If Azerbaijan continues to press its advantage in the conflict through coercive means, especially by military force, the United States and its partners must bring vigorous diplomatic pressure to bear to push the parties back to peaceful negotiations over their territorial disputes.

Editor's Note: Artin Dersimonian was an intern at the Armenian Embassy in Washington in 2018. The Terjenian-Thomas Assembly Internship Program at the Armenian Assembly — which is mentioned in the QI brief on which this article is based — facilitated Dersimonian's internship with the embassy.


Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Armenia's Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev attend a trilateral meeting in Sochi, Russia October 31, 2022. Sputnik/Sergey Bobylev/Pool via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY.
Analysis | Reporting | Europe
Congress
Top image credit: Bill Perry via shutterstock.com

Does the House have the grit to 'Block the Bombs' to Israel?

Washington Politics

Members of Congress are wrapping up August recess in their home districts and preparing to return to Capitol Hill. And if public polling is any indication, they’ve been facing constituents who want to know why their taxpayer dollars are enabling the carnage in Gaza, and what Congress is doing to put an end to it.

If they are smart, lawmakers can work to end U.S. complicity by supporting the “Block the Bombs” bill, a proposal to block sales of bombs and explosive shells to Israel.

keep readingShow less
Trump Khamenei
Top image credit: miss.cabul / Shutterstock.com

Four scenarios for war — and peace — with Iran

Middle East

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran in 2025 shattered long-held assumptions, thrusting U.S.–Iran relations into uncharted territory. The conflict, a dramatic escalation of decades-long tensions, has left the Middle East teetering on the edge of broader instability. As the dust settles, the United States faces a critical juncture in its approach to Iran — one that could redefine the region for decades.

Four plausible scenarios loom large, each carrying profound implications for global security, regional stability, and American foreign policy.

keep readingShow less
Benjamin Netanyahu
Top Image Credit: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the U.S. Independence Day reception, known as the annual "Fourth of July" celebration, hosted by Newsmax, in Jerusalem August 13, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun/Pool (ReutersConnect)

Netanyahu’s ‘total victory’ rhetoric takes an extreme turn

Middle East

As Israel’s war on Gaza escalates with IDF troops now moving to take over Gaza City, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been deploying more extreme language than usual to describe his plans for “total” victory over Hamas. He has eschewed ceasefire talks, and is instead leaning into his expansive vision for a “Greater Israel,” which not only includes an Israeli takeover of Gaza but of neighboring territories too.

His public remarks and media appearances over the last week have caused some to observe that the prime minister may be taking his approach, which is already heavily influenced by the hardline right wing in his cabinet, to an even more maximalist level.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.