Azernews.Az

By Claude Salhani

Amidst the renewed skirmishes in the Caucasus between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops along the Line of Contact, there has also been a flurry of renewed diplomatic efforts -and media attention- -in the standoff between the two former Soviet republics.

Since the start of August there have been serious breeches to the 1994 ceasefire with Azerbaijani troops suffering at least 13 fatalities. Armenia does not report its losses.

All eyes - and hopes - are now focused on the Russian resort city of Sochi where the presidents of the two south Caucasus countries are due to meet Friday under the aegis of Russia.

While the latest bout of violence is worrisome, most analysts do not believe a full-fledged war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is in the cards at this moment. But these clashes come at a time of intense politicking that is going on in the region with remnants of the Cold War emerging. Washington and Moscow are sparring over who can wield greater influence in the region.

Armenia, which keeps under occupation 20 percent of Azerbaijan's territory, is entirely dependent on Moscow for its security and while militarily Azerbaijan is more advanced than its neighbor, a military option is not in the cards so long as Russia continued to support Armenia.

Russia, also has a vested interest in the outcome of the negotiations. First, there is a historic tie, as mentioned above, these are two former Soviet socialist republics, once an integral part of the Soviet Union.

Second, as Russia will begin to feel the crunch of the U.S. and E.U. sanctions, it will be even more interested in insuring a continuous inflow of dollars or rubles, from arms sales to both countries. Analysts from the security think tank Stratfor believe that "the West does not want to see this conflict re-emerge, but Russia does -- to a point."

All of the players, big and small, are re-evaluating their interests and allies in the Caucasus, reports Stratfor.

The problem with US foreign policy is that it is often reactive rather than proactive. Washington does not seem to be able to focus on what comes across to US lawmakers as obscure issues until they explode into the front pages. And often by then it is too late to act.

In a recent analysis on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Stratfor nails it:

"As complex as the politics of the Caucasus are to outsiders, they are clearly increasing in importance to the United States. We could put it this way: Bosnia and Kosovo were obscure concepts to the world until they blew up. Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are equally obscure now. They will not remain obscure unless strategic measures are taken. The logic of the American position is that it should think strategically about the Caucasus, and in doing so, logic and regional dynamics point to a strong relationship with Azerbaijan.

Complex conflicts are already difficult to moderate when there are just two sides and a neutral moderator. Now imagine how much more complex and complicated a conflict becomes when you extend the scope and bring in more players such as Russia, France, Turkey, Iran and the United States, each with their own agenda.