Why France not pleased with end of Karabakh war
French President Emmanuel Macron held a telephone call with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to highlight France’s plans to help Armenia with humanitarian aid, said Macron’s office on Thursday.
Macron also reiterated his determination to find a political solution for the region, which was hit last year by military clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, which ended on November 9 with a Russian-brokered truce and big territorial gains for Azerbaijan.
The conversation took place against the backdrop of the arrival of the fifth consignment of humanitarian aid from France to Armenia. Macron promised to continue helping Yerevan, including promoting the economic development of Armenia.
The current Paris actions indicate that the Elysee Palace adopted a new tactic of returning to the South Caucasus after the political and diplomatic failure of the West during the Second Karabakh War - the tactic of increasing influence on Armenia. There is no longer a place for France in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, both because it refused the role of a neutral mediator, and because the conflict has already been settled without its participation. However, it still wants to be present in the region.
In this regard, Armenia is becoming the site of a new conflict between Russian and Western interests. We must not forget that France is an active member of NATO, and through the influence of Paris in Yerevan, the influence of the Alliance is simultaneously increasing, while Russia's position as a key ally is weakening. Sending humanitarian aid to Armenia is one of the tools for pulling the destroyed republic towards the West, while promising to invest in the economy destroyed by the occupation policy is another one.
However, it's not only about the desire of Paris to please the Armenian diaspora in France and get its votes in the next elections, but also about the anti-Turkish and anti-Russian policy of the Elysee Palace. Therefore, Macron is not so much trying to help the collapsed Armenia (he could have invested in the republic a year or two ago), but rather by using Armenian ultranationalists to complicate the stabilization of peace in the South Caucasus and thereby create problems for Russia and Turkey.
In this regard, one should expect that France's influence on Armenia will be rather destructive, its agents will try to prevent the Armenian citizens from finding a way to reconciliation with the peoples of Azerbaijan and Turkey. Such a policy of Paris in the South Caucasus is unprofitable for Armenia itself, since it preserves and increases the conflict risks in the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.
A real benefit for Armenia will be a 100% rejection of revanchism, nationalism and the desire to conflict with its neighbors. Only full-fledged peace, stability and economic cooperation between the countries and the South Caucasus are in line with their national interests.
The main goal of NATO is a geopolitical victory over Russia, bringing pro-western politicians to power and seizing Russian resources. This goal has not been canceled, and everything that creates problems for Russia, including the strengthening of the negative French influence in Armenia, works to achieve this goal.