Eurasian transit projects as a factor in conflict resolution in the South Caucasus

Elbrus Mammadov, head of The Great Silk Road—Center of Expert Analysis and Associate Professor UNESCO, senior researcher at the Institute of Human Rights of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, and director of the Center for History of the Caucasus of the Caucasus of Huseynov, will conduct the conversation.

E.M. Do we remember that the question of Karabakh was frozen and seemed to be at a dead end—and then quickly resolved? What role did global economic processes play in this?

R.G. The driving force behind modern international relations and foreign policy lies in economic and transit interests. It is the economy—not politics—that now determines the priorities for developing relationships. In today’s world, the economy shapes policy, rather than the other way around, as it once was. Countries that understand this clearly can aspire to sustainable development and prosperity.

E.M. It turns out that those who did not understand this in time carry out economic losses and suffer defeat. We see that in the end, Armenia was aloof from international transit projects. And Azerbaijan, on the contrary, has become a key country for many of them.

R.G. Indeed, there is a connection between large-scale transit and energy projects implemented in Eurasia, which intersect and converge in Azerbaijan. These projects are already implemented with the participation of countries such as China, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Pakistan, and a number of European countries. These projects called the new Silk Road played a role in resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani Karabakh conflict.

E.M. However, as far as I remember, initially, the Karabakh conflict had nothing to do with transit projects.

R.G. Yes, Armenian-Azerbaijani around the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous erupted during the collapse of the USSR, when, I recall, no one could even assume that current transit projects would become relevant. It was one of the bloody ethnic military conflicts.

E.M. It seems that it was precisely that the Karabakh conflict did not initially affect the main world transit routes - far from the South Caucasus did not pay much attention to him. But for Armenia and Azerbaijan, he became really difficult trials.

R.G. The results were difficult for both conflicting parties. The long-term ceasefire was violated by almost every day, and he carried away the lives of people. The main requirement of Azerbaijan was the withdrawal of the Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories. The Armenian side insisted on recognizing the "independence" of the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" with its subsequent accession to Armenia.
E.M.: However, international law requires respect for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
R.G. And historical truth and international law were on the side of Azerbaijan.

E.M.: Yet the international community, especially the West, turned a blind eye to Armenia’s violation of this principle. For over 26 years, no negotiations or mediation efforts succeeded in resolving the conflict, and many considered it “frozen forever.” For years, Azerbaijan persistently called on Armenia to end its occupation of Karabakh, all while strengthening its defense capabilities. It seems Armenian politicians, captivated by nationalist myths, fundamentally refused to compromise, hoping to freeze the issue indefinitely. But was that truly possible?

R.G. Unrealistic. From year to year, the likelihood of resuming hostilities grew. An example of this is the fighting in April 2016, when for three days the Azerbaijani Armed Forces broke the line of defense of the Armenian army, and were able to free some of the lands. The fighting ceased after the mediation of Russia, but still the tension on the front line remained high.

E.M. Even then, in Yerevan, they should have understood that the balance of power was not in their favor and to begin a de -de-Ukrainian. But they did not make concessions. So they hoped for something and someone ... for whom? To Russia?

R.G. We hoped for Russia, or rather, for the possibilities of their lobby in the Russian Federation, but especially to the West. Few people realize that one of the main reasons behind the start of the Karabakh conflict in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the West's desire to gain control over Azerbaijan’s hydrocarbon reserves.

E.M. It turns out that when the West realized that with the help of Armenia and the “cocked Karabakh bomb” to take control of the wealth of Azerbaijan, he simply “wrote off Armenia from the bills” as a tool for realizing such a goal?

R.G. You can say so.

E.M. In 2020, Azerbaijan regained most of the occupied territories through military means, and in 2023, the separatist entity known as "Artsakh" was finally dismantled. However, lasting peace has yet to be achieved, and, contrary to the trilateral agreement of November 2020, the Zangezur corridor remains closed. Yet, today we see that Russia is particularly interested in becoming the main mediator in establishing peace and in opening the Zangezur corridor, which has become essential for it.

R.G. How successful will it be to implement initiatives to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and achieve the conclusion of a strong peace agreement? If successful, Russia will be able to expand its political and economic influence in the Middle East and Europe. Russia can achieve this based on partnerships with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Iran.

E.M. It turns out that Russia has found common interests with Azerbaijan. Anyone interested in Russian politics has long noticed a gradual nomination of “Eurasian ideology”. In the relationship of the Russian Federation, this also played a role in the question of Karabakh.

R.G. Nowadays, when the stronger Azerbaijan itself determines the vectors of its external and economic policy, it is precisely the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that allows you to implement the Eurasian project in the Caucasus. It is no secret that in Azerbaijan they are very positive about the implementation of the Turanian project, which in Russia is presented in another context - under the ideas of Eurasianism. While in Russia they think, Azerbaijan and partners from ideas have moved to specific projects.

E.M. But one idea of Eurasianism is not enough. Do you need specific projects that will fill it with relevant and vital content for Eurasia?

R.G. Repeatedly speaking for several years at international events in particular in Russia, I expressed a vision of those practical mutually beneficial projects that will allow us to try to move on to practical implementation from the theory of the Turanian project. Without economic benefits today, no international political project or idea can be stable. He repeatedly noted in his articles and performances the importance of the speedy implementation of the North-South project (railway from the Persian Gulf through Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia to the Gulf of Finland) and the connection of Russia and other countries to the Western-East project (railway, which will connect Japan, China, the countries of Central Asia, the South Caucasus, Turkey with the countries of Western Europe.

EM. And how did the Russian Federation treat projects with the participation of Azerbaijan?

R.G. For starters, this project (also called the "Middle Corridor", and "Silk Road"), carried out by Azerbaijan, was perceived by the Russian establishment and political science circles as somewhat skeptical. It was believed that the West-East (Middle Corridor) project carried out by Azerbaijan, which has already connected China with Europe, is anti-Russian, and the implementation of the North-South transport corridor together with Azerbaijan, Russia, and Iran is unprofitable. The West-East project was considered “anti-Russian” because it did not pass through the territory of Russia. In joint discussions, I asked - do all the transit, and economic projects of the United States pass through American territory? Indeed, if Russia seeks to strengthen the status of a great power, it needs to implement, first of all, economic projects abroad, and not military-political ones.
EM. By the time of the beginning of the Second Karabakh War, did Russia and Azerbaijan already have plans to implement joint projects?

R.G. Important to the implementation of such joint projects was the Caspian states' role in the Astrakhan IV summit, held on September 29, 2014, with the participation of the presidents of Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The summit was conducted in an atmosphere of constructive dialogue and proved so productive that some participants described it as a 'breakthrough.' During the Caspian summit in Astrakhan, Russia and Azerbaijan signed a crucial agreement on the promotion and mutual protection of investments. The document, jointly developed by Moscow and Baku, allowed for the qualitative expansion of interstate and regional cooperation. This agreement created the conditions for shifting trade and economic relations between the two countries to a fundamentally higher level, including prospects for joint large-scale investment projects in the extraction of hydrocarbon resources on the Caspian shelf and third countries.

On August 8, 2016, in Baku, a trilateral summit with the participation of the presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran marked a practical step in the realization of Eurasian projects, which had been widely discussed in recent years. Since then, the theme of Eurasianism (the Turanian project) has become one of the most debated topics in Russia, where it is viewed as a new ideological and political initiative that will unite a significant part of the CIS states and neighboring countries. The meeting of the three presidents in Baku marked the beginning of a new stage in Eurasian project implementation. It is noteworthy that the Baku summit clearly demonstrated that Russia sees transport corridors as a crucial component for the economic justification of the sustainable development of the Eurasian project.
The Karabakh conflict, however, became an obstacle to the realization of global projects initiated by Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, China, Central Asian countries, and others aiming to reduce dependence on maritime transportation and, consequently, on Western policies. Therefore, it was quite logical for Russia to activate its efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict, as it created nothing but problems for the countries in the region. While, after the First Karabakh War, some circles in Russia believed that the conflict allowed Moscow to influence Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the South Caucasus in general, the recognition of the 'dead zone' in the South Caucasus gradually became beneficial to certain Western circles. However, there are still a number of Western countries that support new logistics projects through the Turkic states

EM. Was there an objective contradiction between the interests of the West and Russia in the Karabakh conflict?

R.G.If the economic power of the Atlantists (the countries of America and Western Europe) is based on control of ocean and sea trade routes, then the Turanian model can successfully compete with them by restoring the former power of the 'Great Silk Road' — a network of transit corridors that once connected the vast expanses of Asia and Europe. Previously, it was believed that railway transportation could not compete with marine transport, which is cheaper and allows for the transportation of much larger quantities of goods at a time. However, in light of the ongoing global financial and economic crisis, the need for transporting goods in massive quantities has significantly decreased. Moreover, transcontinental railway corridors allow for faster delivery of goods compared to sea vessels, and they can achieve this more quickly by bypassing long journeys through seas and oceans. The mobility, efficiency, and reduced dependence on intermediary countries make railway transportation increasingly attractive.

However, this shift in power dynamics worries the Atlantic bloc, most of which sees the restoration of the 'Silk Road' as a threat to its economic and military-political interests. Therefore, the United States and Western Europe will continue to do everything they can to prevent the implementation of large-scale land corridors that could threaten sea transportation. The 'second wind' for these regional projects came with the resolution of the conflict situation between Russia and Turkey, after which a new axis of cooperation between Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkey began to take shape. The leaders of these countries have found ways to overcome their past discord, which will allow for the implementation of new promising economic projects.

EM. But for the implementation of these projects do you need peace in the South Caucasus?

R.G.In this context, the Caucasus region represents a crucial segment not only for a large number of Eurasian states but also for global connectivity. Of particular importance are the transit and economic capabilities of the Caucasus, as well as the Caspian and Black Sea basins. These opportunities are already being realized with the participation of countries such as China, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, and several European nations. The paramount role of the South Caucasus countries in these energy, trade, and economic projects is growing, particularly because Azerbaijan, the regional leader, serves as the generator of ideas and sponsor of their implementation.

Today, Azerbaijan’s implementation of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (West-East) and North-South projects stands as an example of how initiatives involving China, India, Iran, Russia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and European countries can be realized. These projects, within the framework of restoring the 'Silk Road,' will enable the ideas of Eurasianism (the Turanian project) to take concrete form and lay the economic foundations for the convergence of Eurasian countries around this new concept.

In these projects, great expectations are placed on the stabilizing role and support of Turkey, Russia, and Iran, as they have an important mission that they can carry out together with other Eurasian states, particularly those in the post-Soviet space. I have repeatedly emphasized in various political forums that the successful implementation of these projects requires peace and stability in the Caucasus, particularly the resolution of interethnic conflicts, foremost the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which has effectively divided the South Caucasus and allowed the Atlantists (the USA and Western Europe) to actively pursue their own economic and political agendas in the region. For the Turan project to move from the idea stage to actual implementation, conflicts must first be resolved, and issues between the states located along the Silk Road must be addressed.

EM. But at the same time, Azerbaijan cooperates with Europe in the energy sector and has already implemented large-scale projects with the participation of European partners.

R.G. Yes. Azerbaijan consistently turned from the oil and gas production state into one of the main alternative sources of gas supplies to Europe, the main author of the creation of the southern gas corridor, including the construction of transanatoly (Tanap) and transadriatic (TAR) pipelines. Investments for $ 45 billion will be invested in these projects.

EM. Azerbaijan today turns out to be involved in large -scale energy projects and in transit projects “in the western direction”. Including those that are replacing the old absolute houses navigation of sea cargo transportation. And what about the "eastern direction"? Here, new transit corridors are formed and Azerbaijan also participates in them?

R.G. An even more important factor is the expansion of Sino-Pakistani economic relations, with the main focus on Chinese investments aimed at building a network of railways and other transit routes through Pakistan, providing access to the Persian Gulf. Over $45 billion will be invested in the creation of this transport corridor. This corridor will enable quicker delivery of goods from China to Europe via the Persian Gulf, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Although there are still many uncertainties regarding Iran, which has taken a wait-and-see position, it has signed on to projects for the construction of the transit route from India to Afghanistan and Iran, a route that India is lobbying for, and which is closely linked to China’s desire to build a route through Pakistan. Against this backdrop, a new Pakistani-Indian conflict is already brewing, threatening to escalate into a military confrontation.
To discuss the Pakistani-Chinese project, a representative Pakistani delegation, headed by the Federal Minister of Trade of Pakistan, Khurrem Dastgir Khan, visited Baku in December 2016. In 2017, the President of Azerbaijan, accompanied by a large government delegation, visited Pakistan, where they adopted a plan for the implementation of the planned projects. In 2024, the President of Azerbaijan visited Pakistan once again. In essence, this is about creating another branch of the 'Great Silk Road' that will connect East Asia with Europe. This new route through China, Pakistan, and Iran will link to the North-South and West-East corridors, all of which converge in Azerbaijan. As a result, Eurasia will be surrounded on all sides by a network of new transit corridors, which will have significant implications for the economy and geopolitics of many countries.

GSR

SR-CENTER.INFO