Introduction

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, though deeply rooted in regional geopolitics, often receives limited attention from the Western public. When the conflict is discussed, the narrative frequently centers on the perceived alliance between Russia and Armenia, based on Russia's military and economic support. However, this oversimplified portrayal fails to capture the complexities and evolving dynamics of the relationship between these two countries. This article delves into the perceptions and realities of Russia's role in the conflict, examining how Western audiences, primarily from Europe and the United States, view Russia's actions and their implications.

Western Perceptions of Russia as Armenia’s Ally

Popular Western narratives often depict Russia as a steadfast ally of Armenia, providing extensive military support and protection to the country. This perception is rooted in the defense treaty between Russia and Armenia, which has been in place since 2007, and Russia's historical influence in the Caucasus region. Many Western observers believe that Russian weaponry, some of which is supplied for very low costs, ensures Armenia’s security against potential regional adversaries, particularly Azerbaijan.

However, this perspective often overlooks the historical and strategic complexities of the relationship. Critics argue that the notion of Russia 'betraying' Armenia is a misinterpretation of geopolitical realities. The term 'betrayal' itself is heavily laden with emotional connotations, suggesting a moral failing that may not align with the pragmatic considerations underpinning Russia's foreign policy. Moreover, the presence of a Russian military base in Gyumri and the absence of a significant Russian military commitment in the conflict further challenge the narrative of a betrayal.

Historical Context and Legal Considerations

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict began in the early 1990s with Armenia and Azerbaijan clashing over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, where a majority Armenian population seeks autonomy within Azerbaijan. Russia’s involvement was initially limited to peacekeeping missions, but this quickly evolved into a more significant military engagement, particularly in the 2020 conflict. Western observers often attribute Armenia's territorial gains to Russia's military support, overlooking the broader historical context of the conflict.

It is important to note that even during the conflict, Armenia did not claim Nagorno-Karabakh as its own territory unequivocally. The conflict resolution process remains on-going, and the legal status of the region remains unresolved. Russia's military support, therefore, cannot be solely attributed to the ethical imperative of "defending Armenia," but rather reflects strategic considerations including Russian interests in maintaining influence in the Caucasus, safeguarding its economic investments, and ensuring regional stability.

Contemporary Views and Debunking Myths

Contemporary views in Western media and online communities often perpetuate the myth of Russian betrayal, reinforcing a narrative that is more aligned with ideological biases than objective analysis. It is crucial to examine the broader geopolitical landscape and the complex nature of international relations to understand the true implications of Russia's actions.

For instance, the analogy often drawn by critics is that Russia allowed Turkey to shoot down its su-24 fighter jet in Syria, suggesting similar behavior towards Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, this comparison is flawed. In both instances, the triggering events occurred in disputed territories with unclear legal boundaries. Russia's response was dictated by its strategic interests and the need to maintain regional stability, not by a moral obligation to defend any particular ally.

Conclusion

While Russia has provided significant military and economic support to Armenia, the portrayal of Russia's involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as ‘betrayal’ is oversimplified and misleading. The relationship between Russia and Armenia, like any other, is multifaceted and influenced by a wide array of geopolitical factors. Western audiences, in particular, should seek a nuanced understanding of the conflict, considering the historical, legal, and strategic dimensions of Russia's involvement, rather than subscribing to emotionally charged narratives.