Ukraine was ruled from 2010 to 2014 by President Viktor Fёdorovič Janukovič and his supporters from the Donetsk region in the east of the country. He manoeuvred between the EU and Russia in search of political gains. Guided by considerations of domestic urgency, Janukovič helped create hope among the population for an agreement with the EU, for which he would work. The Ukrainian President, however, failed to obtain guarantees from the EU of substantial financial aid as compensation for the damage that Ukrainian industry would suffer as a result of economic rapprochement with the EU. On the eve of the presidential elections, which were to be held in early 2015, the issue became vital.

At the same time, Janukovič had to take into account pressure from Russia. Russia first showed Ukraine – in the form of trade barriers – the losses resulting from choosing the EU instead of Russia, and then – in the form of an aid package – the advantages of choosing Russia. As a result, in November 2013, Yanukovich unexpectedly suspended the process of signing a political and economic association agreement with the EU. In return, he received generous financial and economic aid and assistance from Putin in December.

The decision taken in November 2013 led to mass protests in the centre of Kiev, which almost immediately turned into a constant clash in Majdan Nezaležnosti – Independence Square, the central square of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. Most of the protesters were ordinary people living in poverty and were deeply affected by the rampant corruption in the State apparatus, in which the Janukovič family was also involved. For those citizens, association with the EU seemed a way out of the situation at the time, and when the door to Europe closed, it came as a shock to those people.

The civil protest, known as Majdan, was joined by right-wing nationalist and pro-Nazi groups, mainly from Western Ukraine. According to them, Janukovič, originally from the east, tried to “merge” Ukraine with Russia by deception – a move to which many Westerners were openly hostile. Finally, the Majdan protests were supported and financed by Ukrainian oligarchic clans, angered at the fact that Janukovič and his allies in Donetsk – having seized significant power – were aggressively expanding their business empires at the expense of other oligarchs. For them, Majdan was a means to obtain early presidential elections and overthrow Janukovič.

The events in Ukraine were not initially the focus of the US Presidential Administration, which was mainly concerned with: the situation in the Near and Middle East and East Asia; the Iranian nuclear programme; the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan; and relations with the People’s Republic of China. For both geopolitical and ideological reasons, however, the United States had long supported the pro-Western movement in Ukraine and were wary of the Kremlin’s plans for Eurasian integration. To prevent Ukraine from entering the Russian sphere of influence, the United States provided assistance to right-wing, Western opposition leaders and openly encouraged their efforts.

In mid-February 2014, the conflict in the centre of Kiev escalated with renewed vigour and turned into clashes, which led to a conclusion predetermined by third parties. At first, it seemed that Janukovič had decided to overcome the stalemate by forcibly dispersing the Majdan, which by that time had turned into a serious militant group, created on the basis of the nationalist organisation Pravyj Sektor (the Right Sector: a Ukrainian far-right political party and paramilitary organisation). The President of Ukraine, however, stopped the police offensive and started a dialogue with the opposition leaders, which soon turned into negotiations on concessions by his government, but ended on 21 February 2014 with the President’s actual surrender. The corresponding agreement between the Ukrainian authorities and the opposition leaders was “signed” by the Foreign Ministers of the EU countries, namely France, Germany and Poland. But immediately after the signing, that document was rejected by the Majdan: its most radical members demanded the President’s immediate resignation. Janukovič fled Kiev, the police disappeared from the streets, and the Majdan rioters could celebrate their victory.

Such tragic events were very painful for Russia. From Russia’s viewpoint, Ukraine has been a weak, fragile, and often unreliable partner for twenty years, and it creates problems for the transit of products of the Russian energy giant Gazprom to Europe (as we Italians realized and ascertained years ago). At the same time, Ukraine began to transform itself into a State led by a coalition of pro-Western elites and anti-Russian pro-fascist and anti-Semitic nationalists. According to the Kremlin, that change was fraught with two threats: the oppression of Russian language, culture and identity in Ukraine, and the country’s accession to NATO. Putin reacted immediately: in all likelihood he set into motion the plans already developed by Russia in case Kiev took the road to NATO membership. An attitude of which the US intelligence services were already aware.

Determined and characterised by geographical proximity, Russian policy towards Ukraine immediately gained momentum. Russia’s main objective was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and, ideally, to reorient it in favour of the Eurasian integration project, the key element of which was the reunification of the so-called “Russian world”. As part of that new “proactive course”, Russia set two goals for itself.

The first task was to protect Crimea from the new regime. That goal was achieved by physically isolating the peninsula from mainland Ukraine, and neutralising Ukrainian troops in Crimea with Russian special forces and helping pro-Russian elements establish control over the local government, Parliament and law enforcement agencies. Russia encouraged a referendum on Crimea’s status and launched a massive propaganda campaign in favour of its reunification with Russia. The vote was held on 16 March 2014, with a large majority in favour of reunification. Two days later, an agreement was signed in Moscow on the inclusion of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation. Sevastopol is a city in the disputed territory of Crimea with a Russian-speaking majority. It is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine, which considers it a city with special status, but it is actually a federal city of Russia.

The second task was the federalisation of Ukraine, which would prevent the country’s complete submission to Kiev, thus making any step towards NATO membership technically impossible. On 1 March 2014, Putin asked the Federation Council for authority to use Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine and received it. Russian troops began conducting exercises on the Ukrainian border, thus demonstrating their readiness for an invasion, but the border was not crossed. The Kremlin pressured the new government in Kiev, prevented the United States and the EU from intervening by raising the stakes dramatically, and encouraged Russia’s political allies in the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.

In the south and east of Ukraine, where the Russian-speaking population was the majority, mass demonstrations began demanding regional autonomy and official status for the Russian language. After the demonstrations, organised militia groups began to occupy administrative buildings and take control of the city. In the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, militia groups held regional referendums in early May 2014 and announced the creation of republics independent of Kiev. Russia made no secret of its support for the separatists, but refrained from recognising the republics and sending Russian troops to protect them.

Russia, however, failed to rouse the entire south-east of Ukraine to resist Kiev. The hope that the predominantly Russian-speaking Novorossiya – which made up the entire south-east – would break away from the authorities that had defenestrated Janukovič and create a federation failed to materialise. The most important cities – Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Kherson, Nikolaev, Odessa and Zaporozhye – remained under Kiev’s control. Ukraine’s interim government also launched an “anti-terrorist operation” in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which resulted in significant casualties on both sides and a humanitarian crisis, but did not lead to Russian military intervention.

Russia did not recognise the legitimacy of the Majdan-backed government, although it did not refuse contact with its representatives. The United States, on the other hand, provided political support to Kiev with ample publicity, as evidenced by visits to the Ukrainian capital by then Vice-President Joe Biden (2009-2017), Secretary of State John Kerry (2012-2017), CIA Director John Brennan (2013-2017) and numerous other senior US officials. Russian media claimed that it was the United States that was directing the Ukrainian authorities’ actions.

Russia took a number of diplomatic measures to resolve the crisis in Ukraine and achieve its goals. However, “telephone diplomacy” between the Presidents of Russia and the United States, as well as contacts between Foreign Minister Sergei Viktorovič Lavrov and Secretary of State John Kerry, produced no results. The Geneva Declaration of 17 April 2014 and the road map issued by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on 8 May 2014 remained on paper. Instead, more attention was drawn to sending Russian troops to the Ukrainian border for exercises in what appeared to be preparations for an invasion. The presence of the troops was supposed to dissuade Kiev from taking tough action against its opponents and demonstrate Russia’s determination to defend its interests.

On 25 May 2014, early presidential elections were successfully held in Ukraine, culminating in the undisputed victory of Petro Porošenko (2014-19), an oligarch and one of the Majdan main sponsors The radicals, like the party previously led by Janukovič, did not receive significant support. It was impossible to ignore the choice of tens of millions of Ukrainians and Putin decided to resume contacts with Kiev at the highest level. The Kremlin, where Porošenko was well known, was therefore preparing to interact with the Ukrainian elites again, but under new conditions.

Within weeks, the measures taken in response to Russia’s actions radically changed the nature of the relationship of the former Cold War adversaries. Russia’s policy caused an extremely negative reaction from the United States and its allies. Russia was considered an aggressor and was actually expelled from the G8, a group of major industrialised countries that returned to the G7 format. The EU reduced contacts with Russia and NATO froze cooperation with Russia. Western leaders postponed the bilateral Summits with Putin, although exceptions were soon made. In the UN General Assembly, during the vote on the referendum in Crimea, one hundred States refused to recognise the outcome, while only eleven countries took the opposite position. In the face of almost unanimous condemnation, the Russian delegation suspended its participation in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Russia’s accession process to the OECD also slowed down. Many Western delegations refused to attend high-level international meetings in Russia, including the annual Security Conference in Moscow and the Economic Forum in St. Petersburg.

The United States, and later its allies, imposed sanctions on Russian officials and companies covering entire sectors of Russia’s industry. Their aim was to inflict damage on Russia that would force it to make concessions on the Ukrainian issue and ideally lead to a regime change, i.e. overthrowing Putin by a “coup d’état” or a popular uprising. The subsequent waves of sanctions, combined with Russia’s increased political isolation, immediately led to a sharp drop in its stock market, a massive capital flight and a further weakening of the rouble. Although Russia’s relations with Europe in the energy sector were too important for many EU countries, the trend towards diversification of energy supplies in the Old World increased significantly. As a result, it became more difficult for Russia to import high-tech products.

In the military sphere, Russia began to be seen as an adversary of the West. NATO was once again intensifying its efforts to achieve its original goal of the late 1940s, e.g. “keep the Russians out”. The temporary deployment of relatively small Western contingents in Poland, Romania, and the Baltic States could turn into permanent bases for NATO troops, including US troops on the Alliance’s eastern border. NATO’s anti-missile defence system, currently being deployed in Europe, is openly targeted against Russian nuclear forces. Neutral States, such as Sweden and Finland, are considering joining NATO and, if this decision is taken, they will be accepted with open arms. Thus, at the decisive NATO Summit in Wales in September 2014, the “new old face” of the Alliance was presented to Europe and Russia.

What will Ukraine do if it  wins the war in Ukraine against Russia? U.S.-and-allied heroization of Ukraine’s President Volodmyr Zelensky will increase near to worship for a while, at least until his Government’s retribution against his opponents — every Ukrainian who had wanted accommodation (negotiation) with Russia, and especially ones who had wanted Russia to win — becomes widely known even in The West (which has been censoring-out such retributions as are even now in progress). The regions of Ukraine that recently became parts of Russia had shown in polling (even in U.S. polling) to have large majorities that opposed joining NATO and the EU, and opposed the United States, and favored Russia against Ukraine — in other words: majorities who considered themselves to be Russian and to support Russia, instead of Ukrainian and to support Ukraine, even before Russia invaded Ukraine. Consequently (with such stark facts being shown unambiguously even in polls by Gallup that were taken for the U.S. Government in 2013 before the U.S. coup in Ukraine, and then in 2014 right after that coup), it is undeniably clear that in the areas that Russia had at least temporarily defeated Ukraine’s forces, Zelensky has far more opponents than supporters, and that the current Ukrainian Government’s characterization of the people who live there as being “traitors” will continue until they are eliminated so that they never again can vote in a Ukrainian election.

There will be massive retributions, against millions of Ukrainians, if and when Ukraine wins this war.

Those polls have been clear in their findings, not ONLY in U.S. Government-sponsored pollings but in ALL pollings; and here are highlights from their findings:

During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup (such as is shown here), “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.

Furthermore, the Obama regime had Gallup poll Crimeans before the coup, during May 2013, and found that 68% said their “attitude” toward Russia was “Warm,” but only 14% said “Warm” for “European Union,” and only 6% said “Warm” for “USA.” To the question “Regardless of your passport, what do you consider yourself?” the answers were 40% “Russian” and 24% “Crimean” and 15% “Ukrainian.” They polled them again right after the coup, in April 2014, asking about nations’ “role in the crisis in Ukraine” and 2.8% rated “United States” “positive” but 71.3% rated “Russia” “positive.” When asked “agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people here,” 6.7% said “Disagree,” and 82.8% said “Agree.”

Moreover, in 2013, Gallup ALSO polled throughout Ukraine, and headlined on 14 March 2013, “Before Crisis, Ukrainians More Likely to See NATO as a Threat: West and Central Ukraine warmer toward NATO than East,” and reported that their poll of a thousand Ukrainians, taken during June 27-July 31, 2013 (shortly prior to Yanukovych’s rejecting the EU’s offer), showed that 29% viewed NATO as a “Threat,” and 17% viewed it as a “Protection,” of Ukrainians. Also: the U.S. Government hired Gallup to poll a thousand Ukrainians during “August 27-September 9, 2013”, and Gallup found that whereas in Gallup’s 2012 polls in Ukraine, slightly more Ukrainians preferred Ukraine to join Russia’s “Customs Union” trade-bloc than to join America’s “European Union” trade-bloc, that switched to a slight majority favoring the EU over the CU in 2013 (thereby confirming the success of the Obama Administration’s propaganda-operation). Then, right before the Maidan demonstrations, the Wall Street Journal headlined on 12 November 2013, “Poll Finds Ukrainians Favor EU Pact: Support for a Competing Deal with Moscow Collapses”, and reported that, “The poll by GfK Ukraine found that 45% favored the association agreement with the EU, while only 14% said they want to join Belarus and Kazakhstan in a Russian-led economic bloc called the Customs Union.” The set-up to trap Yanukovych was going like clockwork.

In regards to the EU, Ukrainian public opinion was traditionally unfavorable but flipped favorable during the lead-up to the November 2013 Maidan demonstrations that the CIA and U.S. State Department had hired and trained Ukrainian nazi organizations to organize.

So: the U.S.-and-allied billionaires who controlled Ukrainian public opinion after Obama’s coup were stunningly successful in reversing that public opinion on international affairs, in the coup’s wake — from February 2014 on. And, as I documented from especially the April 2014 Gallup poll of, separately, both Crimeans, and of non-Crimean Ukrainians, Crimeans were strongly anti-NATO, and:

throughout non-Crimean Ukraine, in “South” “East” “Center” “North” and “West”; ONLY in the West (west of Rivne in the northwest and Khmelnytsky in the southwest, or roughly the area within 200 miles of the Polish border) did more than 50% (53%) “Agree” [that “Ukraine should return to the course of NATO integration”]: by contrast, only 10.3% in South did; only 13.1% in East did; only 32.1% in Center did; and only 37.7% in North (which includes Kyiv, the capital) did. On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded the most the regions that most OPPOSED joining in NATO. Only (and just barely), the West region favored to join NATO, and Russia’s invasion has invaded that region (the anti-Russian region) less than any of the others. This fact suggests that the Russian Government has no intention to include the West region as part of Russia in any final settlement of this war between the U.S. and Russia that is being waged in Ukraine’s battlefields, between Russian military forces and America’s Ukrainian and other military-forces — this proxy-war that Washington intends to start WW III.

So: there will be massive retributions against the publics (the majority) in at least all regions except the West region, if Ukraine’s Government wins this war.

What will this be like?

On December 17th, RT headlined “What will happen to ethnic Russians in Donbass and Crimea, if Ukraine and NATO emerge victorious from the current conflict? The brutal treatment of ‘collaborators’ could extend to millions of people.”, and John Varoli wrote:

Ethnic cleansing on the horizon?

This brings us to the main dilemma – if Kiev and NATO win, what happens to the Russians living in the regions they will have ‘liberated’? This is the question I posed to both former and current US government officials and experts. But no one would answer. So I searched online. Likewise, nothing. No detailed information on Kiev’s post-war plan. Their silence is sinister.

Therefore, let’s look at what has already happened in territories ‘liberated’ by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) in the past nine months. Retribution against pro-Russian locals in the Kharkov and Kherson regions was quick and furious, with ‘filtration measures’ used to round up and punish ‘collaborators’, allegedly including extrajudicial killings.

Also, we can see how on a daily basis the UAF indiscriminately shells and terrorizes civilian centers in Donbass, racking up horrendous civilian casualties.

Let that thought sink in – Kiev considers these people to be its own (since it doesn’t recognize the Donbass regions as Russian). Yet, it bombs them ruthlessly every day. How much greater will be the slaughter if the UAF ‘liberates’ Donbass and Crimea from ‘Russian occupation’?

However, the war in Ukraine didn’t start only “nine months” ago; it started virtually as soon as Obama’s take-over of Ukraine succeeded during 20-28 February 2014. I have previously documented in detail that that phrase, “filtration measures,” goes back to the very START of the Obama-imposed government in Ukraine, when, as I reported, in 2014:

almost immediately after Yatsenyuk became the leader of Ukraine, he sacked the existing three Deputy Defense Ministers, on March 5th, and replaced them with three rabidly anti-Russian neo-Nazis, who were committed to this bombing-policy. The person who was made the Minister of Defense, Mikhail Koval, has announced his intention to ethnically cleanse from southeastern Ukraine the “subhumans” who voted for Yanukovych, who will “be resettled in other regions,” meaning either Russia (if Russia accepts these Ukrainian refugees) or else concentration-camps inside Ukraine (and then perhaps death). “There will be a thorough filtration of people.” (That English translation has since been taken down; so, instead, try this and this.) Their property will be confiscated, and “Land parcels will be given out for free to the servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other military formations, as well as to the employees of Interior Ministry and the Security Service of Ukraine that are defending territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country in eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine.” That’s the euphemism for the ethnic cleansing, and mass-theft. In other words, Obama’s rulers of Ukraine are offering their soldiers the opportunity to grab legally the property of their victims. Ukraine doesn’t have the money to pay for all the soldiers that are needed to do this ethnic cleansing; so, they’re being promised war-booty, instead. Sort of like paying them by tips: but with the bigger tips going to the killers with the most (or biggest) scalps. …

Consequently, ever since May 2nd, when this extermination-program started with a bang, by an organized massacre of hundreds of regime-opponents via burning them alive in the Odessa Trade Unions Building, and then followed it up on May 9th by military actions throughout southeastern Ukraine, to kill the residents there, and then pursued it all over the region during the time since, thousands of residents in the region have been fleeing. This is the objective: to get rid of them, one way or another. Hitler called this “Lebensraum.”

Consequently, whereas the post-coup election was held only in the northwest, maybe the next general election will be able to be held throughout the country, after enough Yanukovych-voters have been killed or otherwise disposed of.

Obama is thus redefining “democracy.”

All of this is being done so that the U.S. will be able to base nuclear missiles in Ukraine, only a ten-minute flight to Russia’s command-center, so as to be able to conquer Russia too fast for them to get their retaliatory weapons into the air, so that we’ll “win” a nuclear war against them, in a pre-emptive one-strike blitz-attack to prevent “Putin’s aggression,” as our propagandists call it. 

Furthermore, as I also reported, Obama’s barbarism, there, displayed itself even on 20 February 2014, which was the very day that his coup itself started being perpetrated, when there was “the ‘Korsun Pogrom’ or ‘Korsun Massacre’”: the 20 February 2014 event that sparked Crimea’s breakaway from Ukraine, and I showed there photos which were from videos of it happening on that date, as hundreds of Crimeans who were at the Maidan Square demonstrating peacefully against the coup that was being perpetrated, were chased back onto their buses, by Obama’s hired thugs, and were then road-blocked by them escaping south of Kiev, and scores of them severely injured and uncounted numbers of them killed by those thugs. So, that was right at the very start.

Also, I reported, on 10 October 2014,  

highlights from a one-hour-and-thirty-seven-minute video documenting the ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide against the residents in southeast Ukraine, the Ukrainian area that had voted overwhelmingly for the man whom Obama overthrew on February 22nd. If the voters in that region were to stay in the then-existing territory of Ukraine, no nationwide Ukrainian vote (such as for Ukraine’s President) would favor the pro-U.S, anti-Russian, Government, that Obama had installed in February of this year. Even if new leaders would be elected, the government would then go back to being predominantly pro-Russian, as it had been under Yanukovych. That’s why Obama wanted the residents there slaughtered until enough escaped to Russia so as to eliminate enough of them from the voter-rolls in Ukraine so as to enable Obama’s Ukrainian coup d’etat to succeed (i.e., be stable) on a long-term basis. So, that’s what was tried; and one chooses for carrying out such a purpose racist fascists — or nazis — whose particular hatred is focussed against ethnic Russians: against the people who lived in the pro-Yanukovych region of Ukraine, Ukraine’s southeast.

The full video is at: http://hlamer.ru/video/521371-Ukraine_Crisis-Donbass_Chronicle_of_Genocide_Banned_on_TV-Donbass_Hronika_genotsida_ENG_SUB.

The full video was originally at www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozdz7fMdXI

Then I headlined and documented on 3 February 2015, “Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’” to get rid of the people in Donetsk, which had voted over 90% for Yanukovych.

Here shown is a captured Ukrainian soldier on 17 August 2014 telling how this “filtration” operation was being carried out. What remains of a 23 October 2014 video of such an event is shown with my description having seen the full video of it when it was online, “How Our People Do Their Extermination-Jobs In Ukraine”. The doomed people are driven in a truck at night to a ditch, executed, thrown in, and the excavator that had dug the ditch then pushes the dirt back to fill it over. It was videoed so that they’d get paid for the job.  

And this “filtration of people” continues under Zelensky, as Jeremy Kuzmarov documented on 25 April 2022 headlining “CIA Behind Secret Plots to Kidnap, Torture and Assassinate Ukrainian Dissidents for President Zelensky, says Ukraine Defector”.

Also, in a victorious Ukraine in this war, the individuals who have been manipulated to believe that Russians and also pro-Russians in Ukraine are “traitors” and “terrorists” have been and will even more continue to be treating them like dirt and even torturing them.

This is what the officials and the ‘news’-media in The West want. It’s ugly as hell, but hidden from Western publics. Will it be able to continue being ignored by them after the U.S. regime in Ukraine wins the proxy-war it is waging for its U.S. masters, if it wins? Perhaps so.

Moscow still sees itself as a critical player in the Caucasus region.  The ongoing crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Karabakh region allows Russia to participate in Caucasus affairs. Moscow organized Sochi Summit for Baku and Yerevan for direct talks. The ongoing crisis in the Caucasus has also become a hot topic at the CSTO summit.  Russia seems to remain an influential power and a peace mediator for the Caucasus.

However, Russia’s desire to become the peace broker in the outer Caucasus region is merely a fantasy.  Due to the ongoing Ukrainian war, Russia lacks the power to project and credibility.  Armenia, a close ally of Moscow, is also slowly distancing itself from Moscow, thus making Russia’s vision even harder to achieve.  Furthermore, the outside powers, especially Turkey, have grown significantly more substantial, further eroding Russia’s influences in the region and, therefore, the chances of facilitating peace talks. 

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has gone far beyond the expectation of Moscow.  While Ukrainians bravely defend their homeland, Russia’s seemingly almighty war machine is deep in a predicament.  Moscow calling for partial mobilization further reveals its dire situation.  Russia’s military failure also shook the foundation of Russia’s power projection, as the world now sees Russia as weaker than ever before.  The recent incident of Azerbaijani blocking the road towards Karabakh is a vital sign that Russia is losing its grip over the Karabakh region. 

To make matters worse, Russia’s military actions in Ukraine also triggered a diplomatic tsunami.  Putin’s speech alerted all the former Soviet countries, further depleting Russian credibility.  Meanwhile, the war diverted essential resources and ruined the formidable image of Russian troops.  Azerbaijanis are now taking more aggressive actions in Karabakh after the war, while Karabakh residents have already questioned the effectiveness of Russian peacekeeping forces even before the war.  On all fronts, Moscow’s credibility in mediating peace has eroded. 

Russia maintained a close relationship with Armenia, yet this relationship is far from secure.  On the surface, Russia has been the biggest supporter of Armenia and provides security guarantees.  Russian remained a significant military presence in Armenia while even planning for future expansion.  Russia also offered mediation after the second Armenia-Azerbaijan War and contributed peacekeepers for the only road toward Karabakh.  Even very recently, President Putin says that the Russia-Armenia relationship is still at a high level. 

However, Yerevan’s trust in Moscow has been visibly shrinking.  The mistrust from Yerevan to Moscow is growing after the second war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  From Yerevan’s point of view, the Russia-led CSTO almost ignored the conflict despite Armenia’s request.  After the signing of the peace agreement, some articles became either ambiguous or even not fully executed, like prisoners’ exchange.  Russia’s failed support left Armenia bitter and drove it further away from Moscow. 

Armenia has been more straightforward in addressing its dissatisfaction with Russia.  The recent CSTO conference further indicated Armenia’s anger toward the situation.  The Armenian Prime Minister refused to sign the joint declaration due to the lack of clear stands on the Karabakh issues.  Meanwhile, the opposition party also protested to demand Armenia quit CSTO.  As much as Armenia will remain close to Russia, the relationship’s future remains a question. 

At the same time, Armenia has also been seeking outside support beyond Russia.  The visit of Speaker Pelosi of the US has given Armenians hope that the country could be supported by outside powers other than Russia.  Yerevan has also tried to seek rapprochement with Turkey, a historical adversary.  Armenia was invited to the Antalya Security Conference, and the Foreign Minister of both countries met and discussed normalizing the relationship.  These are all clear signs that Armenia seeks other sources to solve the long-lasting Karabakh issues, thus making Russia’s presence less relevant. 

The outside power also plays a more vital role in the region, taking away Russia’s leverage in the Caucasus.  One of the most prominent players in regional affairs is, in fact, Turkey.  Turkey and Armenia have historical feuds, from territorial disputes to Armenian Genocide issues.  Azerbaijan, however, maintained a close relationship with Turkey.  Turkey’s primary energy source is practically from the Caspian Sea and the pipeline in the region. Turkey has a strong interest in and willingness to mingle with regional issues. 

Turkey is a crucial player in the 2020 Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.  Turkey and Azerbaijan’s close relationship meant that Turkey provided military and political support to the Baku government, and Turkey trained the troops and provided weapon supplies to the Azerbaijan forces.  In the recent conflict in Karabakh, Turkey actively called out the United States statement on the war while also criticizing Armenia for provocation.  Turkey’s role in the competition should not be underestimated. 

Furthermore, Russian reliance on Turkey and Azerbaijan has added significant limitations to Russia’s effort to enforce its influence.  Turkey is shifting toward the hub for Russian oil exports.  Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea access has made them vital for Russia’s energy exports, and Russia recently reached a new trade agreement with Azerbaijan in natural gas.  With Turkey and Azerbaijan becoming critical of the Russian economy, Moscow has to weigh in on the scale of participation in the Caucasus. 

Russia still sees itself as a massive empire with strong influence over the neighboring regions. The failure in Ukraine shattered this dream. Russians lack power and influence in the Caucasus, and Turkey further erodes Russia’s diplomatic status. This makes it impossible for Russia to facilitate substantial talks with the Caucasus countries.  As the tension rises again in Karabakh, Moscow will be slowly sidelined in this conflict.