Why The U.S. Faces A Strategic And Moral Imperative To Intervene In Nagorno-Karabakh

Ethnic Armenians evacuating Nagorno-Karabakh. Photo by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation.

With the world’s eyes on Gaza and Ukraine, many are missing the growing security crisis brewing in another geopolitical hotspot: the Caucuses. Indeed, military experts, politicians, and humanitarian organizations fear Türkiye and Azerbaijan will exploit the lack of attention on themselves to invade Armenia. This development follows decades of wars and stalemates between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which escalated in September of 2023 when Azerbaijan seized Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia through 24 hours of non-stop shelling. Powered by Israeli and Turkish-made weapons, the violence caused tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians to flee their homes. Many ethnic Armenians in the large global diaspora fear that these events will mean the disappearance of the Armenian community in Nagorno-Karabakh (which Armenians call Artsakh) through a new wave of ethnic cleansing. They warn of history repeating itself, pointing to comparisons between the Armenian Genocide a little over a century ago and last month’s events.

Regional experts argue that the U.S. is privately aware of but publicly downplaying the possibility of an invasion of Armenia. So far, The U.S., Russia, and other European countries have failed to protect ethnic Armenians during the months of blockade by Azerbaijan’s military and have not taken adequate steps to prevent further violence against the ethnic group. A ground invasion could benefit Azerbaijan and its allies, especially Russia, and isolate Armenia from Russia, its primary security guarantor. 

Now is the time for the U.S. to play a more active role by providing humanitarian aid to the conflict zone and levying sanctions on Azerbaijan in order to deter the ethnic cleansing of Armenians. In light of this critical situation and the potential for a devastating invasion, the glaring absence of robust Western involvement, particularly from the U.S., not only threatens the stability of the region, but also makes the U.S. complicit should there be another genocide of ethnic Armenians.

In 2020, President Joe Biden chastised Donald Trump for failing to get involved to stop Azerbaijan’s 2020 war against Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet, during Biden’s presidency, U.S. officials retracted statements supporting Armenia, prompting criticism of “empty promises” in resolving the conflict. One such example was Yuri Kim, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe & Eurasia, who warned Azerbaijan that the U.S. would not tolerate an attack on Nagorno-Karabakh, only to then dodge questions on fulfilling the U.S. threat afterward. Failure to make credible commitments to respond to the invasion undermines the U.S.’s deterrent threats in the minds of Azerbaijani leaders in the future. If the administration commits to the foreign policy promises made on the campaign trail, it must make good on them to rebuild the power of U.S. deterrence in a region of the world disturbed by ethnic conflict.

The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, warned that Azerbaijan is preparing genocide against ethnic Armenians in its Nagorno-Karabakh region and called for the U.N. Security Council to bring the matter before the international tribunal. Humanitarian aid groups and genocide experts have also warned of genocidal aspirations from both Türkiye and Azerbaijan, which geographically surround Armenia. The relationship between Armenia and Türkiye is strained, largely due to the Armenian Genocide during World War I. The genocide, in which the Ottoman Empire killed an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, has been a significant point of contention between the two nations. 

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev had called on Armenia to open the Zangezur Corridor, which would cut through a portion of Armenian land and provide unimpeded transportation from Azerbaijan to Türkiye, ending the 1989 mutual blockade imposed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Aliyev threatened to get his way through force if necessary. He has since followed through on this threat, blocking the only road leading from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, impeding food, medical supplies, and other essentials to the region, and then shelling the region. Thus, a successful invasion of Armenia would materialize the Armenian Genocide-era goal of connecting Azerbaijan and Türkiye continuously. Türkiye’s leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been determined to be immortalized as a greater leader than Türkiye’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which is especially powerful in the context of the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic this year. Notably, Atatürk was unable to accomplish this geographic connection. With this risk, there is a moral imperative for the U.S. to take action.

Genocidal intentions were on full display in the last invasion when over 100,000 indigenous Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh endured Azerbaijan’s medieval starvation siege for over nine months before the Azerbaijani military officially invaded. In late October, joint Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises were executed in Nagorno-Karabakh, alongside the arrival of Turkish F-16 fighter jets. The last time such large-scale exercises occurred, it led to the 2020 war. There have also been reports of “!” on Azerbaijan’s military trucks headed toward Armenia, a symbol that roughly resembles a severed Armenia and appears to serve as the conclusion of the 2020-2023 “Karabakh is Azerbaijan!” war slogan. Thus, the risk of invasion is highly pertinent. As history eerily echoes itself with ominous signs and genocidal undertones, the stark reality of an impending invasion becomes undeniably relevant, emphasizing the urgent need for international attention and intervention to avert a humanitarian catastrophe.

Preventing this genocide requires U.S. involvement, and current U.S. efforts aren’t cutting it. In September, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken issued a statement calling Azerbaijan to cease its actions immediately. Still, the U.S. has failed to meet calls from European countries to support them in sanctioning Azerbaijan and Türkiye. Bulgarian MEP Radan Kanev called for a more substantial hardening of the diplomatic reaction of the European Union against Azerbaijan to prevent aggression towards the Armenian sovereign territory. Bulgarian energy experts and diplomats added that sanctions against the Azerbaijani regime are only possible with the support of the U.S., which can replace Azerbaijani gas supplies. This is because Bulgarian and other European leaders are reluctant to directly confront Azerbaijan over its invasion, primarily because of their pursuit of natural gas deals. After prices at the pump skyrocketed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, leaders are reluctant to issue sanctions and lose out on future gas deals. European lawmakers show general interest in supporting Armenians, but ultimately, Azerbaijan’s gas diplomacy makes sanctions nearly impossible. 

Few state leaders are willing to actually challenge Azerbaijan despite humanitarian calls for intervention, such as French president Emmanuel Macron, who refused to enact economic consequences, declaring, “France has no problem with Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan seems to have a problem with international law.” For the EU to reduce its dependency on Azerbaijani gas imports and, in the event of military aggression against Armenia, for a full EU import stop of Azerbaijani oil and gas, it needs U.S. support. Sanctions will be effective because of the small size of Azerbaijan’s economy, particularly because revenues from oil and gas sales are vital to its traditional energy economy.

The U.S. cannot claim to champion human rights while partnered with a country that is ethnically cleansing a minority community from its territory. The U.S. has leverage over the conflict because it consents to Israel’s arms sales to Azerbaijan. Along with supporting EU sanctions, the U.S. needs to put money where its values are, pressuring Baku to support Armenians. Ending security assistance to Baku is a step in the right direction. Still, the U.S. must go further to prevent its financing of genocidal intentions, similar to how the U.S. imposed a price cap on gas and cut Russia off from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT)—a crucial messaging network that facilitates cross-border financial transactions between banks. This made it difficult for Russia to conduct international economic transactions, impacting its ability to engage in trade, receive foreign investments, and carry out other financial activities on the global stage. 

Not only does the U.S. have the moral obligation to follow through with its promises of aid to Armenia and preventing genocide, but there is also a greater strategic necessity to prevent Russia and Türkiye from augmenting their power through aggression.

Indeed, Since the 2020 war, the aforementioned Zangezur Corridor has increased in political significance.  The corridor is strategically important to Russia because it would allow for the deployment of Russian troops to this crucial location due to its direct proximity to Iran, solidifying Russia’s influence in non-NATO territory. Russia’s potential expansion would only lead to more conflict. Iran, for example, has long opposed the Zangezur Corridor concept, warning against any alterations to regional borders or establishing what it perceives as a “pan-Turkic” or “NATO” corridor along its northern frontier, creating the potential for more geopolitical conflict. This greater regional tension proves a strategic rationale exists for U.S. involvement beyond the moral imperative of preventing genocide.

To prevent an ethnic conflict from turning into a regional war, the U.S. should not only provide immediate humanitarian aid to the conflict zone but also take decisive action by imposing sanctions on Azerbaijan. The U.S. must fulfill its promises and commitments, ensuring that its deterrent threats carry weight and are not merely empty rhetoric. Furthermore, the U.S. should leverage its influence to garner international support for sanctions against Azerbaijan and Türkiye, reinforcing the imperative of protecting ethnic Armenians and preventing a repeat of history’s tragic events. 

Russia also has a stake in the conflict, and many global leaders believe that Russia is using Armenia as a geopolitical tool. While allied on paper, Putin has asserted that the Armenian government must be punished for its pro-Western actions, such as moving to finalize its International Criminal Court membership; a top Russian official even referred to Armenia as the next Ukraine. Armenia’s defeat would advance Putin’s imperialist ambitions. Russia benefits from a divided Armenia because it would patrol the proposed Turkish-Azerbaijan land link, giving it enormous economic and geopolitical leverage over both countries. Success in Armenia could give Putin the international image boost and geopolitical influence he needs amidst failing operations in Ukraine. For instance, the Russian presence near Türkiye could help pressure Ankara into blocking NATO’s moves against Russia. A Russian victory in Armenia would not only serve as a triumph for Putin’s imperialist ambitions but also pose a severe threat to regional stability, enabling Russia to consolidate its geopolitical influence and economic leverage, thereby undermining the interests of global leaders and risking further tensions in the already volatile region.

With the U.S. heavily involved in Israel and Ukraine, it is understandable that many believe resources would be spread too thin. However, a hands-off approach to the conflict risks empowering the U.S.’ regional rivals and enabling genocide. Biden must follow his promises to punish Azerbaijan’s actions by supporting EU economic sanctions and humanitarian aid.

Colette Yamashita Holcomb (GS ’26) is a second-year student in the dual degree program with Sciences Po, studying political humanities and human rights. When not writing for CPR, she enjoys overpriced chai lattes, scouting additions to her overflowing tote bag collection, and reading books of all kinds.