Nagorno Karabakh: the reasons for a war
Twitter thread with main arguments:
Here is the Twitter thread in full:
Both sides have long insisted on maximalist positions, derailing the negotiations before they start in earnest. Lack of commitment from international community re-inforced the opinion held in Baku that negotiations are hopeless. International silence actively contributes to war.
I argue that if the co-chairs of the Minsk Group are remaining on the sidelines, other permanent members of the Group should step in.
OSCE has currently no leadership, and EU is ill-suited for taking bold initiatives in short times. Germany currently holds the EU presidency and is a permanent member of the Minsk group.
Back in August 2008, France holding the EU presidency granted legitimacy to Sarkozy negotiating with Medvedev to agree on terms for ending hostilities in Georgia.
Germany could do the same.
I am aware that the 2008 Sarkozy precedent is not a great term of comparison, huge differences and problematic aspects, but at least it shows a legitimate way for international actors to take a more active stance. Understandably, skepticism abounds. Why bother to take a plane and invest political capital if chances of success are so slim? Certainly, the argument goes, it’s up to local players to demonstrate readiness for negotiations; only Moscow and Ankara have real influence.
But perhaps broader international involvement may create the space for mediation in a way that Moscow and Ankara alone could not do.
Silence is an unacceptable abdication of responsibility during an ongoing war causing hundreds of deaths and an impending humanitarian disaster.
- Nagorno Karabakh: sarà (nuovamente) guerra?
- “Abchazja” and other untranslated bits of Wojciech Górecki's Caucasus trilogy
- Russia hacked: problematic sources for insights on conflicts in Ukraine and the South Caucasus
- The EU and De Facto States: Adjust Expectations, Support Small Steps
- Should the EU talk more or less about conflict?