The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan can spread dangerously

The resumption of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a low-intensity war that has never stopped completely, could open a new front in Europe and an aggravation of relations between Moscow and Ankara, involving, however, other actors as well. Recent events speak of new fighting with the two sides involved in the conflict who accuse each other for having attacked first. The region, which after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, had been assigned to the Azeris, broke away from Baku due to the majority of Armenian inhabitants, opening a still unresolved conflict, which has produced over 20,000 deaths and an unspecified exodus. The hostility between Armenia and Azerbaijan is also religious, with Armenians being Christian and Azeris who are Shiite Muslims, a factor that does not preclude the close alliance with Turkey, mostly Sunni, due to a common language. . On the international scene, Armenia has a strong bond with Russia, while Azerbaijan has a strong bond with Turkey; the scenario is aggravated by the bad relations between Armenians and Turks due to the age-old question of the massacres that the Turks perpetrated against the Armenians and that Ankara never wanted to recognize. Martial law is currently in force in both states, and the clashes have already caused several deaths; the situation, from the international point of view, could rapidly degenerate, especially after the planes of the Turkish armed forces have already entered into action, while the Ankara army is already present in Azerbaijan. At this moment Putin would seem reluctant to engage in a new conflict, given the active presence of the Moscow military in Syria and Ukraine, where the commitment had to be limited and quick, but it has turned into a situation without a solution in a short time. The real danger is a more massive intervention by Erdogan, who may not miss an opportunity to reaffirm his direct commitment to the will to practice an aggressive foreign policy, which allows the Turkish country to extend its area of ​​influence. To be faced are two leaders who have a very similar international program, based on the international relaunch of their countries, with questionable operations, but which can make them appear to the world as new protagonists on the international scene: a strategy that must balance internal problems , both in economic and political terms. In Syria, Moscow and Ankara are on opposite positions, with the former supporting the government of Damascus (with Assad remaining in power thanks to Moscow) and the latter still alongside the Sunni Islamic extremists (especially in an anti-Kurdish function). Beyond the pragmatic words, the possible confrontation agitates the two diplomacies: the possibility of a respective involvement, or even of threats, could compromise the already difficult diplomatic relationship, which would affect precisely those fronts where the two countries are opposed: they would be able to bear the consequences of such a confrontation as to include various international actors with very relevant consequences? In the last few hours, the Turkish intervention would have provoked the movement of heavy vehicles of the Russian military force, which would have entered Armenia through Iran. The concession of the transit of foreign war material on its territory, places Iran as a supporter of Russia in opposition to Turkey, a situation that fits well in Tehran's hostility against Ankara and which repeats the Syrian deployment, where Tehran's aversion to Turkey is based on geopolitical and religious motivations. Iran cannot welcome Ankara's movements almost on its borders. In addition, there is also the desire to support Armenia on the part of Egypt: once again the scheme of distracting the population from internal problems, with international actions, is repeated with the Egyptian dictator. Cairo, however, has suffered from Turkish initiatives for some time, including that in Libya, which places Ankara in direct competition with Egypt for its influence on the Sunnis, especially those on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. It should also be remembered that Armenia sided with Greece and Cyprus, in the dispute over the natural resources present in that part of the Mediterranean. The evolution of the situation should not be underestimated, also due to the American position which has not yet been highlighted; the possibility of a much larger conflict than that between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a potential possibility, which can expand much further, far beyond all the actors already present.