By Sergey Sukhankin

Weakened by economic sanctions and bearing significant consequences for their geopolitical endeavors, Iran and Russia have solidified their post-2022 partnership, elevating it to the status of a comprehensive strategic partnership. The imperative to secure their borders and mitigate the impact of economic sanctions positions the South Caucasus and certain areas of the Caspian Sea as the focal points for deepening cooperation between Tehran and Moscow. Among the smaller regional actors, Azerbaijan is likely a primary beneficiary due to its geographically strategic location. Simultaneously, Russia may be inclined to reclaim some of its regional influence. This prospect is both precarious and potentially destabilizing for the region, as Russia’s historical engagement in the area has been characterized by conflict and disruptive interventions.

BACKGROUND: On January 17, Russia and Iran signed a Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, marking the first high-level agreement between the two nations since 2001. Although historically characterized by tension and complexity, bilateral relations have undergone a significant transformation after 2022, in light of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its resulting international isolation. This period has seen a rapid elevation of Russian-Iranian ties, with some experts even suggesting the formation of an Entente.

The primary impetus behind this strengthening of relations lies in the challenges faced by both states. Politically isolated and subjected to extensive sanctions, Russia has become embroiled in a protracted and costly war. With limited strategic alternatives, Russian leadership has increasingly aligned itself with authoritarian regimes and internationally marginalized states—such as North Korea and Belarus—in an effort to mitigate the effects of its diplomatic and economic isolation and to secure critical military support.

Iran’s situation is arguably even more precarious. In addition to ongoing economic struggles and internal social unrest, Iran experienced a series of significant geopolitical setbacks between 2023 and 2024. At the end of 2024, the Tehran-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad was overthrown by the Turkish-supported opposition. Furthermore, the Israel-Hamas war inflicted severe damage on another of Iran’s key Middle Eastern proxies. These developments have reportedly exacerbated internal divisions within the Iranian political establishment, leading segments of Iran’s military-political elite to adopt a more critical stance toward Moscow.

Despite these disagreements, Russia and Iran remain compelled to act as close partners—if not outright allies—in the domains of defense and security, and perhaps even more so in trade and economic cooperation, as both seek to mitigate the detrimental effects of international sanctions. In this context, collaboration in the Caspian Sea region—particularly in specific areas of the South Caucasus—is expected to play a pivotal role in reinforcing Russo-Iranian ties.

IMPLICATIONS:  The strengthening ties between Russia and Iran are expected to have a significant impact on the geo-economic landscape. As emphasized by Russian President Vladimir Putin, "the essence of the Treaty [between Russia and Iran] is about creating additional conditions [...] for the development of trade and economic ties. We need less bureaucracy and more action." This objective is explicitly outlined in Clause 13 of the Treaty.

At present, economic and trade cooperation between Tehran and Moscow remains limited. In 2024, the reported trade volume between the two countries did not exceed US$ 4 billion. However, this may change in the future, primarily due to Russia’s evolving geopolitical strategy. Given its significantly weakened global position after 2022, Moscow increasingly views Iran as its “window to Asia”—a crucial conduit for circumventing Western-imposed economic sanctions and mitigating their severe economic impact.

In pursuit of this objective, Russo-Iranian cooperation is expected to strengthen in two key domains. First, there will likely be an intensification of trade along the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC)—a 7,200-kilometer multimodal freight route encompassing ship, rail, and road networks that connects India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Central Asia. The INSTC is increasingly regarded as a viable alternative to traditional maritime trade routes such as the Suez Canal and the Bosphorus Strait.

Within this framework, Azerbaijan stands to be a primary beneficiary, as its strategic geographic position between Iran and Russia will elevate its role as a crucial transportation hub, significantly enhancing its economic and geopolitical importance within the region.

Azerbaijan’s role could be further reinforced if the two countries proceed with the construction of a natural gas pipeline through Azerbaijani territory. Initially agreed upon in 2022 and reaffirmed in late 2024, this project represents a significant expansion of regional energy cooperation. In his most recent statement on January 17, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the proposed pipeline would have a capacity of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas—equivalent to the Nord Stream 1 capacity—and could potentially be extended to Pakistan and even India.

However, some Russian experts question the economic viability of the project, arguing that its feasibility remains uncertain. They suggest that the pipeline could serve as a political instrument for Russia to exert pressure on China, possibly as a means of persuading Beijing to strengthen its energy ties with Moscow. Nevertheless, if both the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the gas pipeline are successfully implemented, the South Caucasus—and Azerbaijan in particular—will see a marked increase in geopolitical and economic significance as a critical Eurasian transportation and energy corridor.

Although defense and security are not the primary focus of the Russo-Iranian Treaty, as explicitly stated by Iran’s Ambassador to Russia, Kazem Jalali, certain shifts in the regional security landscape are nonetheless anticipated.

One key factor influencing these dynamics is the aftermath of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020), resulting in an undisputed victory for Azerbaijan which not only received strong backing from Turkey but also enjoyed tacit Russian support. This outcome significantly weakened Iran’s position in the South Caucasus, while simultaneously bolstering its strategic adversary, Turkey. In addition to consolidating its influence over Azerbaijan, Turkey also strengthened economic, political, and energy ties with both Azerbaijan and Georgia, marking a substantial geopolitical success for Ankara and further diminishing Tehran’s leverage in the region.

However, in the post-2022 period, the geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus has undergone further transformations, creating additional common ground for Russo-Iranian cooperation. The increasing prominence of Turkey, which directly contradicts the strategic interests of both Russia and Iran, has been a key factor in this shift.

Simultaneously, Russia’s influence over both Armenia and Azerbaijan has weakened. Armenia’s signing of a Charter on Strategic Partnership with the U.S. implies a diversification of its geopolitical partnerships, potentially reducing Moscow’s leverage in Yerevan. 

Moreover, by the end of 2024, anti-Russian sentiment became more pronounced in Abkhazia, a breakaway region that has been heavily reliant on Moscow. These developments have raised alarms among Russian analysts, some of whom have warned of Russia’s "approaching loss of the South Caucasus." While such statements may be premature and alarmist, they nonetheless reflect Moscow’s growing concerns regarding its long-term strategic foothold in the region.

Iran and Russia appear to prioritize a shared geopolitical objective: the de-Westernization of the South Caucasus and the prevention of strengthened U.S. regional influence. This strategic alignment is explicitly reflected in Clause 12 of the Russo-Iranian Treaty, which underscores both parties’ commitment to “strengthening peace and security in the Caspian Sea region, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East [to] prevent destabilizing interference by third parties” in these areas.

In this context, some experts suggest that Iran’s increased diplomatic involvement in regional affairs is likely. One potential avenue for such engagement is the "3+3" format, which includes Armenia, Iran, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. Initially proposed by Ankara and Baku, the framework has since received active support from Moscow as a means to reduce the risk of Western powers gaining a foothold in the South Caucasus. Iran’s participation in this diplomatic initiative could further consolidate its regional influence while aligning with Russia’s broader strategic objectives.

CONCLUSIONS:  The expansion of Russo-Iranian ties is expected to have a notable impact on the South Caucasus and parts of the Caspian Sea region. Azerbaijan's geo-economic and geopolitical significance is likely to increase further, particularly if economic sanctions against Russia remain in place, compelling Moscow to deepen its reliance on alternative regional partners.

Russia, whose regional standing is in decline, might unexpectedly benefit from Iran’s strategic weakening. Given its growing security concerns, Tehran may become more inclined to collaborate with Moscow in the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea region to safeguard its strategic depth and border security.

From a broader strategic perspective, a greater Russian presence in the region should be viewed as a negative development. Given the region’s complexity and history of conflict, Russia’s potential increased involvement—if it materializes—poses a significant risk. Historically, Moscow’s regional policies have regularly contributed to greater instability rather than fostering long-term security, raising concerns about the potential destabilizing consequences of renewed Russian engagement in the South Caucasus and Caspian Sea region.

AUTHOR BIO: Dr. Sergey Sukhankin is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation and the Saratoga Foundation (both Washington DC) and a Fellow at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (Canada). He teaches international business at MacEwan School of Business (Edmonton, Canada). Currently he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Maritime Security Network (CMSN).

By Robert M. Cutler

The year 2024 saw a shift away from external mediation in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, to direct bilateral negotiations. Despite widespread expectations of a finalized peace treaty by the end of 2024, no agreement was signed. This reflects a strategic decision to avoid an interim settlement that could entrench unresolved provisions. Constitutional ambiguities in Armenia and bilateral territorial adjustments continue to shape the negotiation dynamics, raising questions about whether this diplomatic model will consolidate into a stable framework or remain in flux.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1994 Bishkek Protocol froze the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh in a fragile ceasefire regime under Russian sponsorship, mediation models had consistently prioritized multilateral equilibrium over durable resolution. The OSCE Minsk Group—formalized in December 1994 with the three co-chairs France, Russia, and the U.S.—institutionalized this status quo. In this diplomatic environment, negotiations served as an instrument for conflict management rather than conflict termination. The April 2016 Four-Day War briefly upended that architecture, demonstrating the latent instability embedded of the frozen-conflict model. Four and a half years later, the 2020 Second Karabakh War fundamentally restructured the region’s power balance. It rendered obsolete the externally imposed frameworks that had governed negotiations since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The outcome of the 2020 war was the restoration of Azerbaijan’s control over the previously Armenian-occupied regions around the territory of the former (Soviet-era) Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The Russian-brokered ceasefire of November 10, 2020, set the stage for a negotiation dynamic predicated on asymmetrical positioning. Armenia’s formal recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity in October 2022 (a move reportedly taken despite Kremlin opposition) implicitly signalled a shift that was not widely acknowledged at the time. Specifically, multilateral mediation lost its functional rationale; a new phase of direct engagement emerged. The replacement of Minsk Group arbitration, beginning with face-to-face negotiations in Brussels (May 2022), Prague (October 2022), and Munich (February 2023), was the logical conclusion of this trajectory.

The October 2022 Prague meeting marked the first sustained round of direct talks without the Minsk Group’s mediation. It encapsulated the recalibration of the regional conflict-resolution paradigm. The Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process has entered a structurally distinct phase, as direct bilateral diplomacy has replaced externally mediated negotiations. This is not merely a procedural transition. It is a fundamental shift in the conflict’s geopolitical management. For nearly three decades, external actors—principally Russia, the U.S., and the EU—had dictated the diplomatic framework while regional players remained constrained by inherited institutional architectures, notably the defunct OSCE Minsk Group.

IMPLICATIONS:  The failure to finalize a peace treaty in 2024, despite reports that 90 percent of the agreement had been drafted, is not due to any diplomatic shortcoming. Rather, it represents a strategic recalibration. The logic behind avoiding an interim settlement is evident in historical analogues. For example, while the 1995 Dayton Accords successfully concluded the Bosnian War, institutionalized ethnic partitions persist as a structural impediment to governance nearly three decades later. To take another example, the 2015 Minsk II Agreement, designed to create a transitional settlement for the then-Donbas conflict, wound up embedding unresolved territorial issues in the political fabric. This subsequently facilitated Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The deliberate avoidance of a prematurely finalized Armenia–Azerbaijan treaty suggests an awareness of these precedents. By declining to entrench provisions that might later serve as triggers of an unresolved structural conflict, the diplomatic system moves toward a “stable equilibrium” to replace the “local equilibrium” of the temporary cessation of hostilities. The elimination of substantive third-party mediation reinforces this shift.

Since October 2022, all consequential negotiations have been conducted bilaterally. External actors now function as logistical facilitators rather than as substantive arbiters. This pattern is comparable with, for example, the 1979 Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, which—despite U.S. facilitation at Camp David—was fundamentally structured around direct negotiation and which has shown durability for over four decades. It contrasts with the 1993 Oslo Accords, which relied upon external assurances and ambiguous transitional mechanisms, and which collapsed amid shifting geopolitical realities. The Armenia–Azerbaijan framework thus increasingly resembles the former model, with bilateralization reinforcing sustainability. However, asymmetries within the process remain pronounced.

Azerbaijan has consistently employed a “position-setting” strategy, articulating clear demands and advancing specific legal-political objectives. This was evident in President Ilham Aliyev’s remarks at the February 2024 Munich Security Conference, where he characterized the negotiation process as a “one-sided dialogue” in which Azerbaijan proposes terms while Armenia refrains from active counter-positioning. This dynamic was illustrated also by the February 2024 withdrawal of Armenian forces from four Azerbaijani villages (Baghanis-Ayrum, Ashaghi Askipara, Kheyrimli, and Gizilhajili). This withdrawal was executed without a formalized reciprocal agreement, creating the perception that Azerbaijani proposals, rather than structured bilateral compromise, are the driving force in the conflict-resolution process.

The trial of Ruben Vardanyan, a key former figure in the Karabakh administration, further underscores Azerbaijan’s strategy of consolidating its post-2020 advantage through legal and political mechanisms. Vardanyan, arrested in September 2023 following Azerbaijan’s military operation in Karabakh, has been charged with financing terrorism and illegally crossing Azerbaijan’s border. His prosecution reflects a broader pattern of post-conflict legal adjudication, where Azerbaijan is systematically dismantling the institutional remnants of the former Karabakh authority while reinforcing its sovereignty claims over the region.

This judicial dimension introduces new considerations for the negotiation process. While Armenia has distanced itself from former Karabakh leadership figures, the trial raises concerns over how legal precedents set by Azerbaijan’s courts could influence broader diplomatic calculations. Precedents from post-war trials in Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate that such cases can serve as mechanisms of conflict closure or as sources of prolonged diplomatic friction, depending on how they are leveraged within ongoing negotiations. Whether the trial is seen as a necessary legal process or as a strategic assertion of power will shape both Armenian domestic discourse and international perceptions of Azerbaijan’s post-war governance model.

An unresolved question about Armenia’s constitution remains a central point of contention. The constitution’s preamble makes reference to the 1990 Armenian Declaration of Independence, which in turn invokes the 1989 Soviet-era decision on the then–Nagorno-Karabakh, implicitly sustaining a legal framework that conflicts with Armenia’s 2022 diplomatic commitments. While Armenia contends that a treaty provision will supersede domestic law, Azerbaijan cites historical precedents in which Armenian legal rulings activated dormant constitutional clauses to justify policy reversals.

For example, the 2003 Armenian Supreme Court decision permitting Robert Kocharyan’s candidacy for president, despite constitutional residency requirements, exemplifies this phenomenon. Kocharyan, who had never officially resided in the Republic of Armenia prior to independence, was deemed eligible based on his prior residence in Nagorno-Karabakh during the Soviet and early post-Soviet period. This precedent reinforces Azerbaijan’s concerns regarding the durability of Armenian legal commitments, particularly given the requirement for a national referendum to amend the constitutional preamble—an event that will not take place before late 2026.

Historically, such delays have introduced windows of instability, where unforeseen political shifts disrupt anticipated diplomatic trajectories. The postponement of Palestinian legislative elections following the Oslo Accords, for example, contributed to the erosion of transitional governance structures, leading to subsequent escalations. The Armenia–Azerbaijan process now faces a comparable timeline-dependent risk, where protracted legal ambiguity could generate new friction points before formalized resolution mechanisms are enacted.

CONCLUSIONS:  The bilateralization of diplomacy in the South Caucasus challenges the post-Soviet convention of externally managed equilibrium but has not yet cohered into a stable system. Whether the region consolidates into a sustainable post-conflict order or re-enters a phase of mediated arbitration depends not only on the resolution of uncertainties over the Armenian constitution, but also on unresolved territorial demarcations and the strategic recalibrations of external actors. The next 24 months will likely determine the trajectory of this diplomatic framework. Events between now and the end of 2026 will establish whether bilateral statecraft becomes institutionalized or whether it remains only an intermediary phase before external actors (not just Russia but also the EU and Iran) again seek to reassert dominant influence. 

AUTHOR BIO: Robert M. Cutler was for many years a senior research fellow at the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, Carleton University, and is a past fellow of the Canadian International Council.

By Stephen Blank

On November 28, 2024, the Georgian Dream (GD) government announced the termination of Georgian efforts to join the EU. This decision, coming on top of a stolen election and mounting popular disaffection, triggered continuing large-scale demonstrations against the regime despite severe governmental repression. The unfolding Georgian scenario involves continuous information warfare, ongoing efforts at state capture, stolen elections, and creeping annexation through the process of “borderization.” This is a familiar pattern of the process of Russian state capture across Eastern Europe in the Balkans and Ukraine. Georgia is in a major political crisis with considerable international repercussions, which should motivate increased attention and engagement from the EU as well as the U.S.

BACKGROUND: The current Georgian crisis represents a conscious emulation of the 2013-14 Maidan in Ukraine where the population revolted against the Moscow-backed Yanukovych government’s rejection of trade association with the EU, massive corruption, attempts to subordinate Ukraine to Russia, and anti-democratic tendencies. Also mirroring Ukraine, Georgia’s government has employed massive repression, but to no avail. While the Georgian protests evoke the Ukrainian demonstrations of 2013-14, the conditions that gave rise to them embody the Russian pattern of state capture. This pattern of attempted elite and state capture comprises constant information warfare, the use of Russian energy as a political weapon of subversion, threatened or real territorial annexations, and stolen elections. What has occurred in Georgia to lead up to this explosion of popular discontent repeats developments in Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, and to some degree Serbia. 

The program of the GD party, e.g. the attempt to impose, as in Russia, a “Foreign Agents Law” intended to suffocate both domestic opposition and its foreign supporters, consciously emulates the pattern of Russian imperialism. Since Georgia’s defeat in its war against Russia in 2008, Moscow has worked assiduously to discredit pro-Western forces and gradually subvert Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Having utilized the same strategy as in Ukraine, Moscow has helped engulf Georgia in a perpetual crisis where its pro-Western forces depend on Western support while GD clearly enjoys Russian support and patronage while utilizing Moscow’s tactics.

Since its independence in 1991, Georgia’s own unresolved political and ethnic cleavages have clearly given Moscow numerous opportunities for suborning and subverting Georgian efforts at democracy and integration with the West, even though most Georgians prefer those pro-Western outcomes. As in other targets of Russian policy, corruption is endemic, exemplified by the head of GD, Bidzina Invanishvili, who is under U.S. sanctions. Transparency International Georgia has identified 95 companies controlled by Ivanishvili that are registered in the notorious tax havens British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. This examination of Georgian politics also highlighted pervasive violence, bombings, attempted assassinations, and now massive police repression against demonstrators. 

This violence reflects the long-running polarization of Georgian politics that has made governing this unruly state difficult and thus enfeebled its efforts to defend itself against Russian subversion and intervention.

Another major problem has been Georgia’s inability to deal with demands by its South Ossetian and Abkhaz populations for more autonomy if not independence. The failure to reach a settlement, admittedly due to considerable Russian meddling, provided a pretext for the war of 2008 that Georgia lost and for the subsequent creation of Russian army, navy, and air force bases in these territories. 

Worse yet, governed by Russian satraps, mainly from the Silovye Struktury (Power or Force Structures) and occupied by Russian troops, these territories have become staging grounds for Moscow’s “borderization” policy that consists of regular encroachments into Georgian territory that is then annexed to these regions. Their ultimate destiny as seen from Moscow is clearly incorporation into the Russian Federation.

IMPLICATIONS:  Hitherto the West has been overly passive regarding Georgia even though it is ultimately Georgians themselves who must overcome the causes of their long-running crisis. Given Moscow’s loss of influence in both Armenia and Azerbaijan it is likely to redouble its efforts through GD to convert Georgia into a pliable, quiescent satellite that emulates Russian political processes and laws. 

From the standpoint of its values, the EU should intensify its activity with stiffer sanctions against the leaders of GD, issue stronger and more persistent denunciations of what is happening in Georgia and keep the issues of repression and Georgian aspirations before Western publics. By doing so the West and pro-democracy organizations can then increase pressure on both GD and its patrons in Moscow. Moreover, it is also necessary for U.S. diplomacy to weigh in on the side of Georgian democracy in unison with the EU and other organizations so that Georgia can begin to resolve its pressing political and economic issues.

Admittedly the Trump Administration is unlikely to be swayed by invocations of democratic values and solidarity although earlier U.S. administrations have previously promised this to Georgia. However, multiple important strategic considerations growing out of Georgia’s strategic location in the Caucasus and on the eastern shores of the Black Sea could influence Washington to become involved. Since the framework for the Trump Administration’s foreign policy will likely be great power competition and within it the U.S. search for new or improved foreign trade markets, Georgia’s strategic importance can manifest itself to Washington.

If the West continues to adopt the passive position of the last 15 years, Georgia will be lost to Russia, and its economy will be turned to a Russo-Chinese orientation rather than a Western one. That orientation has already had profound consequences for U.S. firms. In particular, U.S. firms who bid on the giant construction project for a projected Georgian port at Anaklia on the Black Sea lost out to a Chinese-led consortium, not least due to the political hegemony of GD. 

However, the stakes involved in the port at Anaklia and other comparable projects transcend Georgia. This port, along with other investments in infrastructure are vital for bringing Azerbaijani and ultimately Central Asian energy to Europe and expanding European trade to both the Caucasus and Central Asia. Central Asia also has considerable potential for exporting green energy and, even more importantly, has large quantities of rare earth minerals. To the degree that Georgia is an independent actor whose infrastructure is integrated with that of the other Black Sea littoral states, Central Asian states will then enjoy much greater opportunities for trade, investment, connectivity, and linkages with the global economy. 

If Georgia falls prey to Moscow’s agenda, then its economy and politics will be reoriented to Russia and China, denying Central Asian states much of the opportunities they seek to integrate with the global economy. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to state that Georgia’s freedom is the key to and precondition for both the Caucasus’ and Central Asia’s full emancipation from the remaining imperial ambitions of both Russia and China.

CONCLUSIONS:  Georgia is clearly in a major political crisis not unlike that of Ukraine in early 2014. As in Ukraine, Moscow seeks to impose a Russian-type regime upon a recalcitrant population and once again triggered a political explosion with considerable international repercussions. Foreign support is desperately needed in this case as well, although finally Georgians must resolve their political problems themselves. This Western support obviously is bound up with Western values to which most Georgians subscribe.

This is not solely an issue pertaining to the fight for democratic governance in Georgia. Russia has long looked askance at Armenia’s effort to democratize and now that it is breaking free of Russia, to the degree that Russia can suborn Georgian democracy it will certainly seek to undermine Armenia’s own experiment in democratization. It will also continue to seek inroads into Azerbaijani politics even though that country’s government is not democratic. As the war in Ukraine and thirty years of previous Russian policy shows, empire is in Moscow’s genetic code, and nothing is more antithetical to empire than democracy. 

Major strategic issues, i.e. the future destiny of both the Caucasus and Central Asia and of peace in Eurasia are at stake. Russia’s efforts to restore its empire are utterly incompatible with peace and any concept of international order not only in Ukraine and Europe but also in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The argument therefore needs to be made both to Washington and European capitals that dedicated support for Georgia’s sovereignty and democracy are necessary not only to uphold common Western values but also the peace and security of the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as countries beyond the Black Sea.

AUTHOR BIO: Stephen Blank is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, www.fpri.org.