Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

УДК 327

DOI: 10.31857/S2686673022010059

Thirty Years of Interaction:

The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End

of the Cold War^

Benyamin Poghosyan

Research Fellow, American Studies Center, Yerevan State University

1 Alek Manukyan St, Yerevan 0025, Armenia

ORCID: 0000-0001-6201-7172

e-mail: bpoghosyan@gmail.com

Abstract: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has been ac-

tively involved in the geopolitics in the post-Soviet space. The US presence was felt every-

where - the European part of the former Soviet Union, Central Asian republics, and the South

Caucasus. The latter subregion finds itself in a strategically important crossroad, connecting

Europe with Central Asia and the Middle East and bordering Russia, Turkey, and Iran. The US

policy in the region was a part of its broader policy in the former Soviet Union, which corre-

sponded to the US grand strategy after the end of the Cold War.

To better understand the US policy in the region after the end of the Cold War, we need to

explore the US grand strategy during that period. Since the end of the Cold War and with onset

of the "unipolar moment" marked by uncontested US hegemony, the US has pursued the strat-

egy of "liberal hegemony" with the core goal to promote democracy in different parts of the

world, including South Caucasus and the former Soviet Union in general. The US interests in

the region also include establishing the network of oil and gas pipelines to supply the European

markets with Caspian energy resources, circumventing Russia. The US supported the reforms

agenda embraced by the post-Soviet states and simultaneously made significant efforts to cre-

ate a strong community of civil society organizations, viewing them as a tool for creating a

new generation of pro-Western elites.

Another aspect of the US regional strategy was to build up the resilience of the newly in-

dependent states to make them, as the Americans called it, less vulnerable to Russian pressure.

The "liberal hegemony" strategy resulted in the US unequivocal support to the so-called "Rose

Revolution" in Georgia and the country’s foreign policy aimed at integration with the European

Union, which included the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU in 2014. The US

allocated significant resources to help launch the Baku - Tbilisi - Ceyhan oil pipeline, and the

Baku - Tbilisi - Erzurum gas pipeline, as well as to support the "Southern gas corridor" pro-

ject.

The 2008 global financial crisis marked the beginning of the end of the "unipolar moment"

and the rise of the new, multi-polar world order. This transformation coincided with the rise of

^ This paper was funded through a Department of State Public Diplomacy Section grant, and the opinions,

findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the Author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect those of the Department of State.

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

China and affected the US foreign policy. The US started to shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific

region, while the 2014 Ukraine events brought Russia - US relations to their lowest point since

the end of the Cold War.

President Trump declared the return of the great power competition era and launched the

America First policy with less or no emphasis on democracy promotion and human rights pro-

tection as a core tenet of the American foreign policy. The election of President Joe Biden

seemed to bring back democracy and human rights back to the US foreign policy forefront.

However, the Biden administration will continue to emphasize great power competition view-

ing Russia and China as its main rivals. The transformation of the global order and the growing

tensions in US-China and US - Russia relations had an impact on the US policy in the South

Caucasus as well. The region is not one of the vital US foreign policy priorities, and the rela-

tively passive US stance during the 2020 Karabakh proved this new equilibrium. The US will

continue to support democracy-oriented reforms in Armenia and Georgia and assist the civil

society sector. Meanwhile, the US will probably avoid actions that may antagonize Russia,

such as pushing hard for Georgia's NATO or EU membership.

Keywords: South Caucasus, US, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia,

grand strategy

For citation: Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Cau-

casus after the End of the Cold War. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture. 2021; 52

(1): 67-87. DOI: 10.31857/S2686673022010059

Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Юж-

ном Кавказе после окончания холодной войны

Б.П. Погосян

Центр американских исследований, Ереванский государственный университет

Республика Армения, 0025, Ереван, ул. Алека Манукяна, 1

ORCID: 0000-0001-6201-7172

e-mail: bpoghosyan@gmail.com

Резюме: После распада Советского Союза в 1991 году Соединенные Штаты стали

принимать активное участие в геополитических процессах на постсоветском простран-

стве. Присутствие США ощущалось повсюду - в европейской части бывшего СССР, в

республиках Средней Азии и на Южном Кавказе. Последний упомянутый субрегион

находится на стратегически важном пересечении, соединяющем Европу с Центральной

Азией и Ближним Востоком и граничащем с Россией, Турцией и Ираном. Политика

США в регионе являлась составной частью более широкой политики Вашингтона на

территории бывшего СССР, которая, в свою очередь, соотносилась с общей внешнепо-

литической стратегией США после окончания холодной войны.

Чтобы лучше понять политику США в регионе после окончания холодной вой-

ны, необходимо изучить внешнеполитическую стратегию США в этот период. После

окончания холодной войны и с наступлением т.н. периода однополярности, отме-

ченного неоспоримой гегемонией США, Америка следовала стратегии «либеральной

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

гегемонии» основной целью которой было продвижение демократии в различных

частях мира, включая Южный Кавказ и бывший СССР в целом. Интересы США в

регионе также включают в себя создание сети нефте- и газопроводов для снабжения

европейских рынков энергоресурсами Каспийского бассейна в обход России. США

поддержали программу реформ, начатых в постсоветских государствах, и одновре-

менно приложили значительные усилия для укрепления сообщества организаций

гражданского общества, рассматривая их как инструмент для создания нового поко-

ления прозападных элит.

Другим аспектом региональной стратегии США было повышение устойчивости

новых независимых государств, чтобы они стали, по их мнению, менее уязвимыми

для давления со стороны России. Стратегия «либеральной гегемонии» привела к без-

оговорочной поддержке США так называемой Революции роз в Грузии, а также

внешней политики страны, направленной на интеграцию с Европейским союзом и

включавшей подписание Соглашения об ассоциации с ЕС в 2014 году. США выде-

лили значительные ресурсы на запуск нефтепровода «Баку - Тбилиси - Джейхан» и

газопровода «Баку - Тбилиси - Эрзурум», а также на поддержку проекта «Южный

газовый коридор».

Глобальный финансовый кризис 2008 года ознаменовал начало конца периода одно-

полярности и возникновение нового многополярного мирового порядка. Эта трансфор-

мация совпала с ростом Китая и оказала влияние на внешнюю политику США. Они

начали смещать свое внимание на Азиатско-Тихоокеанский регион, а события 2014 года

на Украине довели российско-американские отношения до самого низкого уровня со

времени окончания холодной войны.

Президент Д. Трамп объявил о возвращении эры соперничества великих держав

и начал проводить политику «Америка превыше всего», уделяя меньше внимания

продвижению демократии и защите прав человека и не придавая этому роли основ-

ного принципа американской внешней политики. Избрание президента Джо Байдена,

казалось, вернуло демократию и права человека на передний план внешней политики

США. Однако администрация Байдена будет продолжать делать упор на соперниче-

ство великих держав, рассматривая Россию и Китай в качестве своих основных со-

перников. Трансформация мирового порядка и растущая напряженность в отноше-

ниях между США и Китаем с одной стороны и США и Россией с другой оказали

влияние и на политику США на Южном Кавказе. Этот регион не является одним из

жизненно важных приоритетов внешней политики США, и относительно пассивная

позиция США по отношению к Нагорному Карабаху в 2020 году подтвердила такое

положение дел. США будут продолжать поддерживать демократические реформы в

Армении и Грузии, а также оказывать помощь гражданскому обществу. Между тем,

США, вероятно, будут избегать действий, которые могут вызвать антагонизм со сто-

роны России, таких как поддержка настойчивого стремления Грузии к членству в

НАТО или ЕС.

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

Ключевые слова: Южный Кавказ, США, Армения, Азербайджан, Грузия, Россия,

внешнеполитическая стратегия.

Для цитирования: Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the

South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War. США & Канада: экономика, политика,

культура. 2021; 52 (1): 67-87. DOI: 10.31857/S2686673022010059

THE EVOLUTION OF THE US GRAND STRATEGY AFTER THE END OF

THE COLD WAR: FROM CLINTON TO BIDEN

During the Cold War the US pursued the grand strategy of containment. Defined

by the legacy of prominent diplomat and scholar George Kennan, this grand strategy

was pertaining to the entire American foreign policy. The end of the Cold War and the

collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 triggered the quest for a new grand strategy in the

US. Active debates were taking place in both academic and policymaking circles. One

of the early publications, which sought to define the debate, was the article called

“Unipolar Moment” by Charles Krauthammer published in early 1991 in Foreign Af-

fairs. Krauthammer declared that the post-Cold war world would be a unipolar one

characterized by the unchallenged power of the United States. "The world is in a uni-

polar moment," this sentence perhaps was the key in this paper, which gave the name

to the international security system for the coming two decades or so. Krauthammer

argued that the US should embrace this new world and shape it according to its inter-

ests [Krauthammer Ch., 1990/1991].

Just before Krauthammer elaborated on the upcoming unipolar moment, another

American scholar, Francis Fukuyama, published a paper called "The end of History?"

in the National Interest. He argued that what the world may be witnessing is not just

the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but

the end of history as we know it: that is, the endpoint of mankind's ideological

evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of

human government [Fukuyama F. 1989].

In his 1992 article, Joseph Nye Jr. rejected the traditional approaches to the upcom-

ing international security architecture: return to bipolarity, multipolarity, the three

economic blocs, unipolar hegemony, multilevel interdependence. He pushed forward

with the liberal conception of global society of peoples, as well as states, where the

order is resting on values and institutions as well as military power [Nye J. 1992: 83-

96].

These early debates of the early 1990s were vital to the formulation of the new US

grand strategy, which many experts and scholars called a “primacy” or "liberal hegem-

ony" strategy. Primacy builds on hegemonic stability theory, which centers on a claim

that the global order is a public good. As such, nations will try to enjoy it without con-

tribution, which is called free-riding, causing the order to atrophy unless there is a state

- the hegemon - that compels other states to protect it. A strategy of primacy entails that

the US provides this hegemonic leadership mainly through its military commitments

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

and deployments. Thus, under the US protection, states can be less preoccupied with

their security by forming alliances and increasing military capacity [Thrall A., Friedman

B. 2018: 2-3].

As a distinguished American scholar Stephan Walt mentioned, the strategy was

liberal, not in the sense of being left-leaning, but because it sought to use American

power to defend and spread the traditional liberal principles of individual freedom,

democratic governance, and a free-market economy. The strategy was one of he-

gemony because it identified America as the “indispensable nation”: that was

uniquely qualified to spread those political principles to other countries and bring

the states into a web of alliances and institutions designed and led by the United

States [Walt S. 2018: 53-91]. The US launched a strategy to create a liberal world or-

der through the active use of US power. Washington sought to remake other coun-

tries in its image and incorporate them into institutions and arrangements of its de-

sign.

The spread of those values was not only seen to be good on their own terms; they

were seen as positive if not essential for the US’ own security. According to this view,

the US could be only safe in a world full of states like itself, and as long as it had the

power to pursue that outcome, it should do that.

The grand strategy of liberal hegemony was underlying the decision to pursue

the NATO enlargement made by the Clinton administration. In July 1994, the ad-

ministration published its "National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlarge-

ment." It mentioned the necessity for American leadership and defined democracy

promotion as one of the three main goals of the strategy. It also explicitly identified

Russia and other former Soviet Republics as primary areas of democracy promotion

[1].

The "liberal hegemony" strategy was at the heart of the US efforts to expand

NATO. In 1994, the US supported the launch of the NATO Partnership for Peace pro-

gram to enable participants to develop individual relationships with NATO, choosing

their priorities for cooperation, as well as the level and pace of progress [2]. The pro-

gram played a crucial role in fostering NATO relations with the Eastern European

Countries and the former Soviet republics and laid a foundation of NATO enlarge-

ments in 1999, 2004, and further. Along with NATO and the EU enlargement, the lib-

eral hegemony strategy envisaged the active promotion of the US soft power in the

post-Soviet space through establishing and supporting the nascent civil society.

USAID, National Endowment of Democracy, and other US organizations poured bil-

lions of US dollars to establish, support, and sustain the activities of thousands of non-

governmental organizations in the post-Soviet and post-Socialist countries, with a

view to promote the ideas of liberal reforms and Euro-Atlantic integration. These or-

ganizations played a primary role in promoting pro-US agenda in Serbia, Georgia,

Ukraine, and other states.

Besides actively pursuing the soft power strategy, the US did not eschew the use

of hard power in pushing forward its strategic interests, as was the case during the

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

Balkan wars in the early 1990s, the bombing of Serbia in 1999, incursions into Afghan-

istan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

The September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US seemed to have shifted the US atten-

tion from the democracy promotion to the "war on terror". However, democracy promo-

tion was soon made a centerpiece of the "war on terror." A vivid example of the grand

strategy of liberal hegemony was the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003 in flagrant vio-

lation of international law. The US aimed to establish a democracy in Iraq and later to

use Iraq's example to democratize other countries of the region. President George W.

Bush once more evoked this strategy in his second inaugural speech, when he stated

that “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in

other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all over

the world” [3].

The election of President Barack Obama did not bring significant changes to the

American grand strategy. Obama made efforts to normalize relations with Russia by

launching a "reset" in early 2009. The three years of the reset brought some successes,

such as Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization and the signing of the

New START Treaty in 2010. However, democracy promotion continued to be at the

center of American foreign policy, as proved by the full US support of the NATO mili-

tary intervention in Libya in 2011 and its involvement in events in Ukraine in early

2014.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration found itself in a significantly different geo-

political context. The 2008 global financial crisis marked the beginning of the end of

the "Unipolar Moment." The growing influence of China, India, Russia, and other

players launched the post cold war era and the multipolar world system. This trans-

formation was defined both by power shift from the West to the East, and a diffusion

of power as many non-state actors such as transnational companies, non profit founda-

tions, international criminal networks, and military groups have gained more influ-

ence.

The American political and academic establishment started to feel the changes.

Fareed Zakaria captured this turning moment in his 2008 book "Post-American

World" and his paper "The Future of American power" published in the May/June

2008 issue of Foreign Affairs. He argued that the emerging international system was

likely to be quite different from those that had preceded it. Since 1991, the world had

lived under a US imperium, a unique, unipolar world where the open global economy

has expanded and accelerated. However, on every dimension other than military

power -- industrial, financial, social, cultural -- the distribution of power was shifting,

moving away from US dominance. Thus, the world was moving into a post-American

world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people [Zakaria F.

2008].

The shifts in the world power distribution reinvigorated the debate about the ne-

cessity to adopt a new grand strategy. In 2014 Barry Posen published his book “Re-

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

straint: A New Foundation for the US Grand Strategy", in which he called to abandon

the grand strategy of "liberal hegemony" and pursue a new one, which will signifi-

cantly reduce the US involvements in different parts of the world. Posen called to fo-

cus on a small number of threats and approach those threats with subtlety and mod-

eration. According to Posen, it was not smart to spend energy transforming the recal-

citrant world that Americans could spend renewing the United States [Posen B. 2014:

1-11]. The apparent failure of the American policy of democracy promotion and na-

tion-building in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya contributed to the debate about the ne-

cessity of a new grand strategy.

Another factor having influenced the American strategic thinking of the 2010s was

the eventual rise of China and the growing understanding among American experts

and policymaking community that China will be the primary US competitor in dec-

ades to come. The rise of China challenged another assumption of the liberal hegemo-

ny strategy, according to which the rise of living standards and the emergence of the

middle class will inevitably bring about changes in the political system and will facili-

tate the political reforms. China made impressive successes in rooting out extreme

poverty, but it does not bring the era of liberal reforms despite America's hopes. The

“pivot to Asia” strategy, first articulated by the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton

in her 2011 Foreign Policy article, was the harbinger of the changing US attitudes in

foreign policy [Clinton H. 2011].

In summer 2016, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published "The Case for

Offshore Balancing: A Superior US Grand Strategy” paper. They called the US to for-

go ambitious efforts to remake other societies and concentrate on what really matters:

Preserving the US dominance in the Western hemisphere and countering potential

hegemons in Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf, preserving the regional

balance of power. They argued that this new grand strategy was the only tangible way

to secure the US role as the world’s ‘sole superpower [Mearsheimer J., Walt S. 2016:

70-83].

Despite the shift of focus of the US foreign policy towards the Asia Pacific, the

Obama administration did not end the liberal hegemony strategy. Democracy promo-

tion continued to be the central pillar of the US foreign policy, which was evident by

the 2014 events in Ukraine. The US put significant efforts to support the anti-

Yanukovich movement in Ukraine, explaining it by the desire to promote democracy

and protect the rule of law and human rights. Another example was the Obama ad-

ministration's decision to support anti-Assad forces in the Syrian conflict and Obama's

explicit calls for Assad to step down [4].

The victory of Trump in the 2016 presidential elections sent shock waves across

the US political spectrum. Trump's disdain for globalization and his “America first”

policy seemed to usher in the end of the liberal hegemony strategy. President Trump

downgraded democracy promotion as a US foreign policy priority, simultaneously

making efforts to keep the US position as the world's sole superpower. Given the cha-

otic nature of Trump's presidency, it is difficult to identify a clear grand strategy un-

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

der the Trump administration. The recurring theme for his presidency was the return

of the great power competition, which was identified as the main feature of XXI cen-

tury geopolitics [5].

Trump has significantly ramped up the US anti-China policy launching a trade

war against Beijing. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic he has sought to

trigger anti-China sentiments worldwide by calling the novel coronavirus a "Wuhan

virus" and disseminating the "lab leak" theory. Despite his initial statements about

intentions to normalize relations with Russia, the US - Russia relations deteriorated

further as they effectively became hostage of the US domestic policy fight between

Republicans and Democrats.

In his recently published book "American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump,"

American scholar Hal Brands offers two models of the more nationalistic US grand

strategy during the Trump presidency or after. The first model is "Fortress America", a

hardline, neo-isolationist strategy that would deliberately undermine the existing

global order in search of a unilateral advantage. The second approach argues that the

more nationalistic grand strategy will focus on redistributing burdens, securing more

advantageous deals and arrangements with the US allies and partners [Brands H.

2018: 101-127]. President Trump's repeated calls to the NATO allies to improve bur-

den-sharing by increasing their defense spending and his efforts to renegotiate the

free trade deal with Canada and Mexico can be perceived as examples of this type of

grand strategy.

The recent book by Benjamin Miller and Ziv Rubinovitz, "Grand strategy from

Truman to Trump," provides excellent insight into the choices made by the different

US administrations. Authors identified four general types of grand strategies: offen-

sive realism - quest for superiority/hegemony, including by a unilateral resort to

force, defensive realism- focusing on security maximization through balancing, deter-

rence, and multilateral arms control, offensive liberalism - promotion of democracy

through the use of force, defensive liberalism - emphasis on soft power and interna-

tional institutions and spread of democracy by peaceful means [Miller B., Rubinovitz

Z. 2020: 9-37]. According to this approach, we may define the Bill Clinton, George W.

Bush, and Barack Obama's grand strategy as a mix of offensive and defensive liberal-

ism, while that of Donald Trump as offensive realism seeking to reinstitute the US

hegemony through utterly coercive measures, including trade wars and economic

sanctions.

The victory of Joe Biden in the November 2020 presidential elections reinvigorated

the debate on the future US grand strategy. During the election campaign as well as

after the inauguration, Biden emphasized the necessity to bring back democracy and

human rights protection into the forefront of US foreign policy. Biden declared that

the critical event that would determine the world's future is the struggle between de-

mocracies and authoritarian powers.

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

In March 2021 Biden administration published its “Interim National Security Stra-

tegic Guidance” [6]. The document declared that democracies across the globe were

increasingly under siege and argued that the US should join hands with like-minded

allies and partners to revitalize democracy all over the world. The word democracy

prevailed the entire document, thus creating an impression that Biden decided to re-

turn to the liberal hegemony strategy. President Biden’s decision to convene Leaders’

Virtual Summit for Democracy in December 2021, with three principal topics: defend-

ing against authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human

rights, was in line with this narrative [7].

The Biden administration continues to pay special attention to the great power

competition. In its April 2021 Annual threat assessment, the Office of the Director of

the National Intelligence identified Russia and China as critical threats to US nation-

al security. Marking China as a sole potential peer competitor for the US, the docu-

ment fixed Russia as a primary source of concerns in fields such as cyber capabilities

and modern weaponry, including hypersonic missiles. The US defense establish-

ment warned that Russia - China military cooperation might play a role of force

multiplier for China, thus significantly increasing the long-term danger posed by

China [8].

Meanwhile, several prominent US scholars and foreign policy practitioners argued

for accepting the inevitability of the emergence of a multipolar world and called for a

relevant US foreign policy. The President of Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass

and Charles Kupchan proposed the establishment of the "New Concert of powers" giv-

en the fact that the two centuries of Western world domination under Pax Britannica

and then under Pax Americana, are coming to an end. They called for a new global con-

cert of major powers, as a consultative, not a decision-making body comprising six

members, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia and the United States [Haass

R., Kupchan Ch. 2021].

Speaking about the US grand strategy under President Biden, Michael O'Hanlon

put forward the idea of a new grand strategy, which he calls resolute restraint. The

core tenet of the proposed strategy is the determination to firmly uphold American

commitments to its allies and its core interests like freedom of the seas. However,

O'Hanlon argues that restraint is just as important with regard to generally avoiding

further expansion of alliances and seeking tough-minded but realistic compromises on

nuclear negotiations with North Korea and Iran. He believes that a new US grand

strategy should focus much more on shoring up the core of the rules-based global or-

der than pursuing a more ambitious liberal order [O’Hanlon M. 2021: 21-56].

As of now, we may argue that the Biden administration is still in the quest to elab-

orate a new US grand strategy [Deudney D., Ikenberry J. 2021]. However, in general

American establishment understands that continuation of liberal hegemony will re-

quire dual containment simultaneously countering Russia and China. Dual contain-

ment strategy was implemented by the Clinton administration in the 1990s against

Iran and Iraq, but it cannot be replicated now [Myers H. 1997].

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

Parts of the American establishment call for actions to drive a wedge between

Russia and China, similar to what the US, with skillful diplomacy of Henri Kissinger,

did in the early 1970s to divide China and the Soviet Union [9; Kupchan Ch. 2021].

The decision to hold an early summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in June

2021 and repeated statements of the US leadership about their intention to have pre-

dictable relations with Russia may indicate that the US is wary of dangers to fighting

both China and Russia simultaneously [10].

Thus, despite all rhetoric about bringing back democracy and human rights at the

heart of the US foreign policy, the Biden administration may pursue a more cautious

policy towards Russia, seeking to prevent the further deepening of Russia - China re-

lations [Mitchell A. 2021]. According to the new administration's actions, we may ar-

gue that the Biden administration will seek to fuse the options of resolute restraint

with defensive liberalism in its pursuit of the new grand strategy. The US will seek to

promote democracy through soft power, mainly focusing on supporting the civil soci-

ety, creating pro-Western forces, especially among the young generation, and using

EU normative power in the former Soviet space to reinvigorate the reform processes.

Meanwhile, most probably, NATO enlargement will be focused on Western Balkans,

and there will be no push to include former Soviet Republics such as Georgia or

Ukraine into the alliance.

US POLICY IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS IN THE POST-COLD WAR

PERIOD: EARLY STEPS

The collapse of the Soviet Union opened South Caucasus for the US. The region

has been part of the USSR since December 1922, after having been incorporated into

the Russian empire in the early 19^th century. The US had brief relations with the

South Caucasus in 1918-1920, when independent Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

emerged due to the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917. The then US President

Woodrow Wilson even offered the US Senate to take Armenia's mandate in 1920,

but this idea was rejected by the growing isolationist forces of the US [11]. Thus, we

may argue that in late 1991 the US had little experience in the region full of ethnic

and interstate conflicts. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the US did not develop

any special policy towards the South Caucasus. The region was part of the US gen-

eral perception towards post-Soviet space, where the main goals of the US were de-

mocracy promotion and support of reforms and modernization of state institutions.

South Caucasus was part of the 1992 Freedom Support Act coverage area. However,

as a result of the active efforts of the Armenian - American community, the 907 sec-

tion of the Freedom Support Act banned any direct aid to the Azerbaijani govern-

ment as far as the latter would not stop the blockade and other offensive uses of

force against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh [12]. This section was under yearly

waiver since 2001 to allow the US to assist Azerbaijan to fight against terror, and the

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

waiver was extended once more by the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on

April 23, 2021 [13].

The early years of the independent South Caucasus were marked by several eth-

nopolitical conflicts in Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh), Abkhazia, South Ossetia, as well

as the civil war and military coups in Georgia and Azerbaijan. The US was not directly

involved in these conflicts, mainly acting through the CSCE and later OSCE. One of

the early strategic goals of the US in the region was the establishment of the new

routes to bring Azerbaijani oil and gas to Europe, circumventing Russia. The US made

significant efforts to make a reality the signing of the 1994 Contract of the Century - a

production sharing agreement (PSA) between the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan

(SOCAR) and eleven foreign oil companies [14]. That PSA represented the first signifi-

cant investment by Western multinational companies in any country of the former

Soviet Union.

The US played a significant role in the implementation of the “Contract of the

Century” and establishment of a new network of oil and gas pipelines (Baku - Tbilisi

- Jeyhan and Baku - Tbilisi - Erzurum) stretching from Azerbaijan via Georgia to

Turkey and bringing Azerbaijani oil and gas to the world markets circumventing both

Iran and Russia. The US viewed this pipeline network of as a necessity to balance

against Iranian and Russian efforts to undermine Azerbaijan's independence. Accord-

ing to the former US ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Kauzlarich (1994-1997), the

US political engagement was critical to supporting the Azerbaijan International Oper-

ating Company (AIOC) consortium and blocking continuous Iranian and Russian ef-

forts to use the uncertain status of the Caspian Sea to upset this Western-led energy

effort [15].

Besides supporting Azerbaijan in developing its energy resources, the US provid-

ed large-scale humanitarian aid to Armenia in 1992-1994. The country was in a hu-

manitarian crisis with the population receiving only 2 hours of electricity per day with

no gas supply to central heating systems. After 1994, when hostilities ceased in all

three conflict zones, the US continued its support to Armenia and Georgia in their po-

litical and economic reforms. This was done through USAID as well as other Ameri-

can organizations. Another aspect of the US involvement in the region was the sup-

port of the newly established civil society organizations as the primary vehicle for dis-

seminating American soft power.

Another aspect of the US involvement in the South Caucasus was its role as a co-

chair of the OSCE Minsk Group along with Russia and France tasked with finding a

peaceful resolution over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The Minsk Group elaborated

several proposals to achieve a solution; the last offer was the so-called Madrid Princi-

ples. The basic elements were agreed upon in 2007 and publicized by the co-chair

countries’ heads of states in 2009 [16]. These offers were never realized, but helped to

manage the conflict and prevent the resumption of large-scale hostilities in the 2000s

and 2010s [Markedonov S., Suchkov M. 2020].

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

THE US POLICY IN THE REGION IN THE 2000s

The next phase in the US - South Caucasus relations started after the Rose

Revolution in Georgia in November 2003. The Georgian government expressed its

desire for the Euro-Atlantic integration in the late 1990s under the leadership of

then-President Shevardnadze. However, the process was accelerated after the Rose

Revolution and the election of President Saakashvili. He launched sweeping re-

forms focusing on fighting against low and mid-level corruption. Saakashvili cul-

tivated personal solid relations with several officials of the Bush administration.

This period coincided with the second term of the Bush presidency when democ-

racy promotion was raised to the heights of the US foreign policy priorities [Ru-

mer E., Sokolsky R., Stronski P. 2017]. President Bush visited Georgia in May 2005

(the only visit by the sitting US President to the South Caucasus yet) [17], and

supported Georgia in its efforts to close the two remaining Russian military bases

in Vaziani and Akhalkalaki.

During this period, the US actively supported establishing the Turkey - Georgia -

Azerbaijan triangle and the construction and launch of the Baku - Tbilisi - Ceyhan oil

and Baku - Tbilisi Erzurum gas pipelines. Meanwhile, the growing Western involve-

ment in the post-Soviet world and the parade of "сolor revolutions" (Rose Revolution

in Georgia, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan) triggered

a Russia - US relations crisis. Russia viewed these changes as a clear manifestation of

the US intention to encircle Russia with pro-Western countries and diminish Russian

role in the post-Soviet space. Coupled with the enlargement of NATO and the EU,

these developments triggered a backlash in Russia. The harbinger of Russia - US and

Russia - West disagreements in general was President Putin's famous Munich Securi-

ty Conference speech in February 2007 [18].

The February 2008 declaration of Kosovo independence and the April 2008 NATO

Bucharest summit decision to guarantee NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia

in some indefinite future were perceived in Russia as a crossing of the red lines by the

West. The August 2008 Russia - Georgia war followed soon after, adding more strain

to the US- Russia relations.

Meanwhile, the main priorities of the US in the South Caucasus have not changed

in this period. The US continued to support South Caucasus republics to modernize

their state institutions, viewing it as a tangible tool to increase those republics' resili-

ence and decrease their dependence on Russia. The key partner of the US in the region

was Georgia, but Washington continued its cooperation with both Armenia and Azer-

baijan.

As we mentioned, since 2001, the US administration has issued waivers for the

Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, as Azerbaijan provided its land and air

for supply routes to the US forces in Afghanistan. Armenia was a CSTO member

and hosted a Russian military base in Gyumri, but this did not prevent the US -

Armenia cooperation in bilateral and multilateral levels. The US played a signifi-

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

cant role in pushing forward Armenia - NATO cooperation which resulted in first

Armenia - NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan in December 2005. The US,

through the NATO Defense Education Enhancement program, was actively in-

volved also in defense education reforms launched in Armenia, while few Arme-

nian officers started to receive military education in the US military education in-

stitutions through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) pro-

gram [Kotanjian H. 2012].

THE US - RUSSIA RELATIONS AND THE US POLICY

IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS IN 2010s.

The launch of the "Reset" policy by the Obama administration in early 2009 de-

creased tensions in the US - Russia relations. Several positive interactions transpired

between 2009-2011, which included Russia and the US signing a new treaty on reduc-

ing strategic weapons and Russia voting in favor of the 2010 UN Security Council res-

olution imposing sanctions on Iran. Additionally, in 2011, Russia abstained on the UN

Security Council Libya resolution, and the US supported the Russian bid to become a

member of the World Trade Organization.

The pattern has dramatically changed since late 2011 when then Russian Prime Min-

ister Vladimir Putin decided to run for a third Presidential term in the Spring 2012 elec-

tions and put forward an idea to create the Eurasian Economic Union [19]. The US estab-

lishment perceived this move as a clear sign of growing authoritarianism in Russia. The

Eurasian Economic Union project was viewed as an effort to re-Sovietize the region un-

der another name and to restore the Russian zone of influence within the post-Soviet

space [20]. Russian decision to grant asylum to Edward Snowden in 2013 only exacer-

bated the situation. Even though the US and Russia managed to overcome the crisis

concerning the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, mutual dis-

trust was only growing.

A new phase of the crisis in bilateral relations began in early 2014 with the Euro-

maidan revolution in Ukraine. The ouster of the Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich

in February 2014, the Referendum in Crimea and the decision to incorporate the pen-

insula into Russian territory, Russian support of the insurgency in the Donetsk and

Lugansk regions of Ukraine, and the US and EU sanctions imposed on Russia left bi-

lateral relations at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.

The US narrative surrounding these events is based on the vision that Russia has

clearly breached the fundamental norms of international law by its actions in

Ukraine [21]. According to the US, Russia attempts to redraw borders by force and

change the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Russian actions are

viewed as a violation of its commitments with the aim to create a zone of instability

in Central and Eastern Europe. Since the Ukraine crisis, both the US and NATO

made steps to strengthen their military posture in this part of the world through

programs like the European Reassurance Initiative, which later was transformed

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

into a European Deterrence Initiative [22]. Additionally, during the Wales and War-

saw summits, NATO decided to strengthen the Alliance military capabilities on the

Eastern Flank.

In this new context of the Russia - US rivalry, the US policy in the post-Soviet

space was mainly focused on Ukraine, and South Caucasus was somehow sidelined.

The US continued to work closely with Georgia. The two sides signed a Charter on

Strategic Partnership in January 2009, which defined the contours of bilateral coopera-

tion [23]. The victory of the Georgian Dream coalition in the October 2012 parliamen-

tary elections in Georgia and the departure of President Saakashvili in autumn of 2013

did not have a significant impact on bilateral relations. The new government of Geor-

gia took steps to restore economic relations with Russia, but Euro-Atlantic integration

remained at the heart of Georgia's foreign policy.

The election of President Trump in 2016 did not make significant changes in the

US policy in the region. Despite the lack of emphasis on democracy promotion and

human rights by Donald Trump, the US continued its policy to assist the region in

reform promotion. The US launched significant efforts to overcome an internal politi-

cal crisis in Georgia in late 2019 - early 2020 and contributed to the signing of the

March 8, 2020 agreement between the opposition and the ruling Georgian Dream par-

ty securing the rules for the October 2020 parliamentary elections [24].

The US continued to support Azerbaijan in the development and launch of the

Southern gas corridor aimed to bring Azerbaijani gas to Europe via Transanatolian

(TANAP) and Trans-Adriatic (TAP) pipelines. Meanwhile, the drawdown of the US

troops in Afghanistan diminished Azerbaijani role as a supply route for the US. The

growing authoritarian tendencies in Azerbaijani leadership also negatively effected

bilateral relations.

In the 2010s, the US continued its support to Armenia through various programs

funded by USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, and other American organi-

zations. Their main aim was support for reforms in different sectors, such as fight

against corruption, establishing an independent judiciary system, good governance

and protecting human rights.

THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE US POLICY IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

AFTER THE 2020 KARABAKH WAR

The current phase of the Karabakh conflict started in February 1988, when the

Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast authorities appealed to the Soviet Union

leadership to incorporate NKAO into Soviet Armenia. Soviet Azerbaijan rejected

this possibility, and the situation started to deteriorate. After the collapse of the So-

viet Union, the full-fledged war broke out between Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh,

and Azerbaijan, which ended in May 1994. The negotiations over the Karabakh con-

flict have been conducted under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group, which was

established back in 1992. In recent two decades, the process was steered by the three

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

co-chair countries - Russia, the US, and France. The co-chairs put out several op-

tions to resolve the conflict, but negotiations have been in a deadlock since June 2011

failed Kazan summit [25] and the four-day war in April 2016 only cemented the im-

passe. Since 2007, negotiations have been conducted within the so-called “basic

principles”. It was an effort to find balance between the principles of territorial in-

tegrity and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. They envisaged the

return of some territories around the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Re-

gion which were part of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic to Azerbaijan while

providing interim status to Karabakh and a land corridor linking Karabakh to Ar-

menia during the first phase of settlement. During the next phase, the determination

of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh should take place through a legally

binding expression of will. The conventional wisdom was telling that Karabakh

Armenians will vote either for independence or for unification with Armenia, thus

realizing their right of self-determination, while Azerbaijan would receive back sig-

nificant parts of territories which it lost during the 1992 - 1994 war. However, Azer-

baijan rejected this plan stating that Nagorno Karabakh would not be granted inde-

pendence today or tomorrow or in 10 or 50 years.

Meanwhile, the April 2016 four-day war launched by Azerbaijan was an alarming

bell for Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic that international guarantees

for security did not work. It meant that most probably, after taking vast portions of

the territory of Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Azerbaijan will reject the idea of a refer-

endum and use these new territories to launch another war against Karabakh in the

future [26].

Thus, in recent years the Basic principles were perceived mainly as not an effective

tool for conflict settlement but as a tangible way to preserve the status quo and prevent

a large-scale war. However, this was working only in the framework of the international

and regional balance of power. However, the 2008 world financial crisis marked the be-

ginning of post-Cold War order demise, with few hints when the new world order may

emerge and what it may look like. Relative decline of the US, the end of the "unipolar

moment," and the rise of the other powers have brought strategic ambiguity and signifi-

cant instability in international relations. Dubbed by many scholars as global disorder,

these tectonic changes have also influenced regional balances of power. In the absence

of global hegemony, the rivalry for regional influence began in many regions of the

world, with a growing emphasis on economic, political, and military coercion by several

states [27].

The 2020 Karabakh war has significantly impacted the regional dynamics in the

South Caucasus. Experts and pundits have not yet come to a unified approach regard-

ing the reasons and implications of the war. However, many agree that its primary

beneficiaries were Russia and Turkey. Russia has reached perhaps its main goal in

Karabakh - to put Russian boots on the ground, while it has also significantly in-

creased its military presence in Armenia. Turkey has cemented its presence in Azer-

baijan as now a large part of Azerbaijani society believes that without Turkey's overt

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

support and involvement, Baku could not win the war. Turkey also participates in the

joint monitoring center operating in the Aghdam region of Azerbaijan, though Turkey

hoped to have more military involvement in the post-war Karabakh.

Another recurring topic in expert discussions after the 2020 Karabakh war is the

decrease of Western influence in the region. The US and France, two other OSCE

Minsk Group Co-chairs, did not take part in the elaboration of the November 10, 2020,

trilateral Armenia - Azerbaijan - Russia statement, which put an end to the war. Both

countries made efforts during the war to reach the humanitarian ceasefire, but with no

real success. The 2020 Karabakh war coincided with the Presidential election cam-

paign in the US, and many experts believe that this was the main reason why Wash-

ington was so passive during the hostilities.

The victory of Joe Biden in the November 2020 elections seemed to bring the usual

patterns of the US foreign policy back to the pitch. The notion "America is back" is

perceived as willingness to increase American involvement in different parts of the

world. The emphasis on democracy and human rights by the key figures of the new

administration may create a perception that Biden will reinvigorate the liberal hegem-

ony grand strategy implemented with varying degrees by the Clinton, Bush, and

Obama administrations during 1993-2016. However, it will be challenging for the US

to behave like it did in the 1990s, when Washington was free to do whatever it want-

ed. The emerging multipolar system requires new approaches in dealings with adver-

saries such as Russia and China, and the grand strategy of liberal hegemony may not

be the right answer to the new challenges faced by the US.

As of now, the Biden administration has not put out a new strategy for the South

Caucasus. The US would not like to see Russian influence increase there; meanwhile,

it is not in a position to force its desirable solutions in the region. Most probably, the

US will imply cautious approach, seeking to decrease Russian presence in the region

through persistent efforts to push forward with continued liberal reforms in Armenia

and Georgia using the US assistance and the US leading role in the international fi-

nancial institutions as leverage to influence the governments’ policies. Another chan-

nel for the US influence is the support of Western-oriented civil society organizations,

which play the role of the cadre bank to fill the government offices with pro-US per-

sons. The US views the EU involvement in the region through the Eastern Partnership

initiative as an essential supplement for its efforts to push forward this agenda and

welcomes the recent EU announcement on the new aid package for the regional pow-

ers [28].

Meanwhile, the US will avoid moves that may be perceived as threats to its vital

interests by Moscow - such as pushing for the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP)

for Georgia or calling for the removal of the Russian troops from Karabakh or Arme-

nia.

The US continues to believe that the economic cooperation between regional states

will not only contribute to the de-escalation of the situation, but in the long term will

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

result in the decrease of Russian influence in Armenia as Yerevan will feel less threat-

ened by Azerbaijan and Turkey and thus will have fewer incentives to be militarily

tied with Moscow. In this context, the US will support restoration of communication

routes in the South Caucasus and establishment of economic ties between Armenia

and Azerbaijan and Armenia and Turkey. Interestingly, in this respect, the US and

Russia interests coincide. Russia also pushes forward to restore communications and

economic cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan to stabilize the post-2020 sta-

tus quo and foment Russia's gains [29].

Another hot topic debated by experts is the US views on the Minsk Group and

Turkey's role in the South Caucasus. The Minsk Group co-chairs have published sev-

eral statements since the end of the 2020 war calling for the resumption of the negotia-

tion process under the auspices of the Minsk Group [30]. However, there is a general

understanding that Minsk group statements mean little. The group may adopt state-

ments calling for a re-start of negotiations every month, and the Armenian govern-

ment may reiterate its support to these calls, but this process is insufficient to force

Azerbaijan to return to the negotiation table. As for the role of Turkey, the Biden ad-

ministration may not like President Erdogan, but this does not mean that the US will

act against the increase of Turkey's role in the region.^ Regardless of who sits in the

Ankara Presidential Palace, more Turkish influence in the South Caucasus means less

Russian presence.

SOURCES

1. A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement, the White

House, July 1994.

Partnership

for

Peace

program.

Available

at:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50349.htm

President

Bush's

Second Inaugural Address. Available at:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4460172.

Obama on Syria:

Assad

Must

Go.

Available

at:

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/obama-syria-assad-must-go

5. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017.

Available

at:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-

content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Interim National Security Strategic

Guidance. Available at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-

releases/2021/03/03/interim-national-security-strategic-guidance

^ For a detailed analysis of US-Turkey relations, see Turkey's Nationalist Course, Implications

for the U.S.-Turkish Strategic Partnership and the US Army, RAND, 2020,

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2589.html

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

7. President Biden to Convene Leaders’ Summit for Democracy. Available at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-

releases/2021/08/11/president-biden-to-convene-leaders-summit-for-democracy/

8. Annual threat assessment of the US intelligence community, Office of the direc-

tor

National

Intelligence,

April,

2021.

Available

at:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2021-

Unclassified-Report.pdf

9. Bugajski Janusz, The US can play China against Russia. Available at:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/460535-the-us-can-play-china-against-

russia

10.

Remarks by President Biden on Russia. Available at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-

remarks/2021/04/15/remarks-by-president-biden-on-russia/

11.

Mandate for Armenia. Available at: https://www.armenian-

genocide.org/Affirmation.64/current_category.4/affirmation_detail.html

12. Freedom Support Act. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-

congress/senate-bill/2532/text

13. Extension of Waiver of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act With Respect

Assistance

the

Government of Azerbaijan. Available at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/04/2021-09259/extension-of-

waiver-of-section-907-of-the-freedom-support-act-with-respect-to-assistance-to-the

14. The contract of the century - a national strategy for success. Available at:

https://www.bp.com/en_az/azerbaijan/home/who-we-

are/operationsprojects/acg2/the-contract-of-the-century---a-national-strategy-for-

success.html

15. Kauzlarich Richard, America and Azerbaijan: Five Reflections on the Contract

the

Century.

Available

at:

https://www.the-american-

interest.com/2019/10/03/america-and-azerbaijan-five-reflections-on-the-contract-of-

the-century/

16. Statement by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries. Available at:

https://www.osce.org/mg/51152

17.

Text:

Bush's

speech

Georgia.

Available

at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4534267.stm.

18. Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security

Policy. Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

19. Article by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin "A new integration project for Eura-

sia: The future in the making"

("Izvestia", October

2011). Available at:

https://russiaeu.ru/en/news/article-prime-minister-vladimir-putin-new-integration-

project-eurasia-future-making-izvestia-3-

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

20. Clinton Calls Eurasian Integration an Effort to 'Re-Sovietize'. Available at:

https://www.rferl.org/a/clinton-calls-eurasian-integration-effort-to-

resovietize/24791921.html

21. Obama: 'Strong belief' Russia violated international law. Available at:

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obama-russia-ukraine-104231.

22. European Deterrence Initiative: the transatlantic security guarantee. Available

at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625117/EPRS_BRI(2

018)625117_EN.pdf

23. United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership. Available at:

https://www.state.gov/united-states-georgia-charter-on-strategic-partnership/

24. Statement of the Political Dialogue Facilitators on Agreement (March 8). Avail-

able at: https://ge.usembassy.gov/statement-of-the-political-dialog-facilitators-on-

agreement-march-8/

25. Aliyev, Sarkisian Fail To Finalize Karabakh Agreement. Avaiable at:

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/24245898.html.

26. Poghosyan Benyamin, Why “The Land for Promise” Formula will never be ac-

cepted

Armenia

& Nagorno Karabakh.

Available

at:

https://www.indrastra.com/2020/05/Land-for-promise-Armenia-Nagorno-006-06-2020-

0007.html

27. Poghosyan Benyamin, Emerging Global Order: Implications for the Regional

Geopolitics. Available at: https://www.indrastra.com/2018/10/Emerging-Global-

Order-Implications-for-Regional-Geopolitics-004-10-2018-0020.html

28. Eastern Partnership: a renewed agenda for recovery, resilience and reform un-

derpinned by an Economic and Investment plan. Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3367.

29. Telephone conversation with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Available

at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/65913, the trilateral working group

on Karabakh re-sumes work in Moscow, https://tass.com/world/1327133

30. Statement by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. Available at:

https://www.osce.org/minsk-group/483416

REFERENCES

Brands H. 2018. American Grand strategy in the age of Trump. Brookings Institu-

tion Press, 256 p.

Clinton H. 2011. America’s Pacific Century. Foreign Policy. 11.10.2011. Available

at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/

Deudney D., Ikenberry G. 2021. Misplaced Restraint: The Quincy Coalition Versus

Liberal Internationalism. Survival, No. 4, p. 7-32, DOI:10.1080/00396338.2021.1956187

ТОЧКА ЗРЕНИЯ / OPINION

2022; 1: 67-87

США & Канада: экономика, политика, культура / USA & Canada: economics, politics, culture

Flanagan S. et al. 2020. Turkey’s Nationalist Course, Implications for the U.S.-

Turkish Strategic Partnership and the US Army. RAND Corporation. Available at:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2589.html

Fukuyama F. 1989. The end of history? The National Interest, No 16, p. 3-18.

Haass R., Kupchan Ch. 2021. The New Concert of Powers, How to Prevent

Catastrophe and Promote Stability in a Multipolar World. Foreign Affairs, 23.03.2021.

Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-03-23/new-concert-

powers

Kotanjian H. 2012. Managing Strategic Changes through DEEP Reforms: A View

from the Perspective of US-Armenia "Smart Power" Cooperation. Connections The

Quarterly Journal, No. 4, p. 83-90.

Krauthammer Ch. 1990/91. The Unipolar moment, Foreign Affairs, America and

the World. Foreign Affairs, No. 1, p. 23-33.

Kupchan Ch. 2021. The Right Way to Split China and Russia. Foreign Affairs.

04.08.2021.

Available

at:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-

states/2021-08-04/right-way-split-china-and-russia

Markedonov S., Suchkov M. 2020. Russia and the United States in the Caucasus:

cooperation and competition. Caucasus Survey, No.

1, p.

1-17. DOI:

10.1080/23761199.2020.1732101

Mearsheimer J., Walt S. 2016. The Case for Offshore Balancing: A Superior US

Grand Strategy. Foreign Affairs, No. 4.

Miller B., Rubinovitz Z. 2020. Grand strategy from Truman to Trump. University

of Chicago Press, 330 p.

Mitchell A. 2021. A Strategy for Avoiding Two-Front War. The National Interest,

22.08.2021. Available at: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-

front-war-192137?page=0%2C1&fbclid=IwAR0-

cDtI5NDPvaiDKZMcmoe9ngKrAupj3TcnkC5GUjblOGuIaJcY6CqGiHs

Myers H. 1997. The US policy of dual containment toward Iran and Iraq in theory

and practice. Air War College, Air University,

50 p. Available at:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA399045.pdf

Nye J. 1992. What new World Order? Foreign Affairs, No. 2.

O’Hanlon M. 2021. The art of war in an Age of Peace: U.S. Grand Strategy and

resolute restraint. Yale University Press, 304 p.

Posen B. 2014. Restraint: A New foundation for the US Grand Strategy. Cornell

University Press, 256 p.

Rumer E., Sokolsky R., Stronski P. 2017. U.S. policy towards the South Caucasus:

Take three, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 34 p.

Thrall A., Friedman B. 2018. National interests, grand strategy and the case for re-

straint. US Grand strategy in the 21^st century: The case for restraint, ed. by A. Trevor

Thrall and Benjamin H. Friedman. Routledge.

Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War

Погосян Б.П. Тридцать лет взаимодействия: политика США на Южном Кавказе…

Walt S. 2018. The hell of good intentions: American foreign policy elite and the de-

cline of US primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 400 p.

Zakaria F. 2008. The Future of American power. Foreign Affairs, No. 3, p. 18-43

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБ АВТОРЕ / INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ПОГОСЯН Бениамин Погосович,

Benyamin POGHOSYAN, PhD in Histo-

д.и.н., научный сотрудник Центра

ry, Research Fellow at the Center for

американских исследований Ереван-

American Studies, Yerevan State Univer-

ского государственного университета

sity.

Республика Армения, 0025, Ереван, ул.

1 Alek Manukyan St, Yerevan 0025, Ar-

Алека Манукяна, 1

menia

Статья поступила в редакцию / Received 6.09.2021.

Статья поступила после рецензирования / Revised

Статья принята к публикации / Accepted