South caucasus and a ‘New Great Game’: the communication of competition in securitised international relations

Abstract

This article seeks to compare and analyse the historical and contemporary arguments concerning the existence of the brand the 'Great Game' in Central Asia with that of a 'new' Great Game in the South Caucasus, while assessing the validity and problems of using this term. The article analyses the regional state of affairs and possible impacts of the Russian factor in forging close relations between South Caucasus states and NATO. It is argued that Russia's and NATO's vested interests in the region rhetorically contribute to European security system in the context of the security environment after the Georgian-Russian War of 2008 and its repercussions. NATO's presence may be interpreted as counterbalancing the Russian military presence in the region, but there are also clear limits to the alliance's willingness to actively engage in the region, not least the reluctance to antagonize Moscow. The context of geopolitical competition may be interpreted as a 'new' Great Game sharing similarities with nineteenth century competition of great powers, yet a number of clear differences also exist relative to the traditional Great Game.

The Main Stages of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict and the Consequences of the Conflict

“…Scholars studying the geopolitical situation in the region pay special attention to the problems of political and economic partnership of the South Caucasus countries with the leading world powers (Hunter, 2017;de Wall, 2012;Hill, 2015;Aydin, 2020;Ergun, 2020;Samkharadze, 2022;Avdaliani, 2022). Some studies examine issues of geopolitical stability in the context of interethnic conflicts in the region (Kakachia, 2012;Kapanadze, 2014;Sadiyev, 2021). The problems of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which ceased to be intra-Caucasian and affected the interests of leading world powers such as Russia, the USA, the European Union, and Great Britain became the object of close attention of both regional and foreign scientists (Svante, 1999;Broers, 2005;Freiser, 2015;Branch, 2018;Alstadt, 2016, de Wall, 2021.…”