Elguja Kavtaradze

Armenia and Azerbaijan in a geopolitical battle. Zangezur corridor

Introduction

Armenia and azerbaijan in a geopolitical battle. Zangezur corridor. South Caucasus geopolitical battle: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Zangezur corridor. Major powers compete for regional influence, energy resources, and transport routes.

Abstract

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of three independent states on the map of the South Caucasus was welcomed in Turkey and Iran, which had actually lost the fight for control of the region to Russia in the past. The new geopolitical situation is in their interests, as buffer states have emerged between them and their centuries-old northern rival. Tehran is also using the newly formed situation to its advantage. It has gained the opportunity to communicate with Europe through the South Caucasus, which can significantly reduce its dependence on cooperation in the field of transport with Ankara. One of Tehran's goals is to prevent Ankara from gaining strength in the region, which is beneficial for Russia, as it creates an opportunity to restore control over the region. On the other hand, if there is a prospect of creating a military-political union of the CIS countries led by Moscow, Iran can be safely listed as an opponent of such a union, as it will be perceived as a threat to its own national security. But, as such a union is not expected in the near future, then Iran can be perceived as a Russian ally in the fight against the spread of Turkish and US influence in the region. In addition to neighbors, European countries and the United States are interested in the region. European countries prefer to act with the help of EU programs, which allows them to achieve better results at lower costs. It must be recognized that the South Caucasus is not a priority area in EU policy, so instead of large-scale investments from European companies, there is mainly technical assistance and educational programs, the main goal of which is to find internal resources in the countries of the region, optimize their use. The main political goals of the EU must be recognized as maintaining the independence of the South Caucasus states, primarily from Moscow, as well as stabilizing the situation in them. However, the main goal of the EU in the region is to develop the hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian Sea and ensure their safe transportation to European markets. The United States of America, remaining the only superpower in the world, is striving to support the independence of the former post-Soviet republics from Russia in order to prevent the possibility of their integration around it. The existence of the Caspian hydrocarbon basin contributed to the change in the US position towards the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The US oil giants could not allow either Russian control over the oil fields or the dominance of European competitors. They forced Washington to take an active position in the region and declare it a zone of its vital interests. This is due to the fact that the US dependence on oil supplies from the Persian Gulf countries is great and threatens to exceed the fifty percent threshold. In addition, control over the Caspian basin fields will allow influencing the world oil market. So, as for the EU, it is necessary to recognize the main goals of the US as control over oil and gas reserves in the Caspian region and the creation of routes for transporting oil to the world market. In such international relations and in the process of geopolitical struggle, the peoples and states of the South Caucasus have to live, while simultaneously fighting to preserve their geopolitical space. Today, logistical geopolitics in international relations is at the zenith of its struggle. Conflicts and geopolitical processes affect not only the transport architecture of the South Caucasus states, but also determine which geopolitical camp a particular country will be in. The South Caucasus, with its great transit potential, stands out for its uneven development of the transport infrastructures of all three republics in the region, which is mainly due to a complex of geopolitical problems, in particular the presence of a number of unresolved conflicts. The latter create significant obstacles both for regional transport integration and for the uniform involvement of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan in international transport communications.

Review

This paper, titled "Armenia and Azerbaijan in a geopolitical battle. Zangezur corridor," outlines a critical examination of the multifaceted geopolitical dynamics shaping the South Caucasus in the post-Soviet era. The abstract effectively sets the stage by highlighting how the collapse of the Soviet Union transformed the region into a contested space, attracting the strategic interests of neighboring powers such as Turkey, Iran, and Russia, alongside the broader engagement of the European Union and the United States. The core premise posits the South Caucasus as a geopolitical battleground where historical rivalries, energy resources, and strategic transport corridors—with the Zangezur corridor as a key focal point—determine the region's future and the alignments of its constituent states. A significant strength of the abstract lies in its comprehensive identification and articulation of the diverse motivations and strategies of the external actors. It clearly details Iran's complex objectives, including securing alternative transport routes to Europe, preventing Turkish regional dominance, and tactically aligning with Russia against Western influence. Similarly, it outlines Russia's enduring aim to reassert control, the EU's focus on maintaining independence for the South Caucasus states and ensuring Caspian hydrocarbon transport, and the US's commitment to preventing Russian integration while securing access to energy resources. By sketching this intricate web of competing interests and the region's critical transit potential, the abstract effectively underscores the profound impact these external forces have on the local transport infrastructure and the geopolitical orientation of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. While the abstract provides a compelling overview of the external geopolitical struggles, the full paper would benefit from a more explicit and detailed exploration of Armenia's and Azerbaijan's specific roles, agency, and internal dynamics within this "geopolitical battle," particularly concerning the Zangezur corridor. Although the title prominently features both nations, the abstract primarily frames them as objects of external power plays rather than active participants with distinct strategic objectives and vulnerabilities. Deepening the analysis of how these two nations specifically navigate, resist, or leverage the competing interests of external powers, and how their internal politics and bilateral relations are shaped by the logistical geopolitics of the Zangezur corridor, would significantly enhance the paper's contribution to understanding this crucial and complex region.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.