(Hypothetical) Should the US step in to help Armenia?

I wasn’t sure if this was a P&E question or not.
Inspired by this article and Russia’s recent setbacks.

From my limited reading, it seemed to me that if Russia abandoned Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan would start invading. Were that to happen, should the US or a coalition of nations step in? And for how long?

I feel we (the US) obviously should on humanitarian grounds if nothing else given the Armenian/Turkish history, but I’m curious if anyone feels otherwise or even if there’s a question there.

The only possible reason I can think of is that Armenian has a large Christian populace and also a large diaspora in the United States. Other than that, what would be the purpose or reason to intervene?

If needed, it should be led by the UN, not the US. We really have to get out the Policeman to the World mode. (says the former hawk)

Keeping in mind that we have very strong ties to Turkey through NATO, it would be especially bad to intervene in any way but Diplomatically.

Does preventing another genocide really require a realpolitik payoff?

It seems like a line has been crossed in the conflict in the last few days. Its gone from being a conflict over a break-away region (which there is no strong reason for the US or the international community to intervene other than to try and convince both sides to negotiate) to a flat out invasion of Armenia proper by Azerbaijan.

I get there is no universal law of fairness in foreign affairs where because country A did X the international community did Y, that means when country B does X the international community must also do Y. But when you have a blatant case of “unfairness” like this one it makes aggression more likely in the future. i.e. Russia invades Ukraine, the US and the international community rallies round and gives the Ukraine the aid it needs. Azerbaijan invades Armenia: crickets.

Not that I’m suggesting that the US should directly get involved militarily. But there is a lot the US could do short of that that could make a difference. Azerbaijan is not Russia, the US can threaten the Azerbaijani economy in ways it could not threaten Russian (and the US has a lot of influence with Turkey, Azerbaijan’s main backer).

I don’t think the situation is too close to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Isn’t this still border clashes?

Well the Russians would have you believe thats all the Ukraine situation is too. Though I think the current conflict (in the last few days) has moved beyond a border dispute to an actual invasion. Also though I just saw this:

This is actually a pretty good example of the kind of action the US can take in this situation. I’d guess the Azerbaijanis were assuming that with Russia and the west concentrating on the Ukraine they would be left alone to seize a bit of Armenia while no one was watching. This visit was a way of telling them otherwise without shipping any arms or moving any aircraft carriers.

Of course they could decide to ignore the message completely and carry on the war.

The situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan is complicated; Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region inside Azerbaijan that is internationally recognized by everyone in the UN as being part of Azerbaijan but has been de facto ruled by the Armenian Republic of Artsakh which was only connected to Armenia by the Lachin corridor which was de jure Azerbaijanian territory but was occupied by Russian peacekeepers until 2022. Fighting on some scale has been going on there for almost 35 years since the end of the Soviet Union (and even before the USSR dissolved), including two open wars with low intensity conflict going on before, between, and after the open wars.

My feeling is that the US should certainly do what it can to deescalate the situation, but there aren’t very clear right and wrong sides in the overall conflict between the two.

I didn’t realize that we valued national sovereignty on that basis.
Are there any other religions they should adopt or avoid if they want to encourage the US to act on the US’s stated values?

One possible reason would be to show the world that the US is willing to do more for its non-allies than Russia is willing or able to do for its allies.

We also need to do something to avoid it being used by Putin as evidence of NATO’s (via Turkey) military expansionist intentions against Russia.

Between the two, yes. In terms of Turkey’s involvement, they shouldn’t be involved.

So in the current 35 year long ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where parts of Azerbaijan are under de facto rule of ethnic Armenians despite every nation in the UN agreeing that it de jure belongs to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan is in the clear wrong because Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians 100 odd years ago and currently supports Azerbaijan, which had nothing to do with said genocide. Have I got that right?

Because by that same logic, between Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine is clearly in the wrong. They are currently supported by Germany, and 80 odd years ago Germany was in the business of committing genocide against the Russians. Clearly Germany shouldn’t be involved in the war, and between the Ukrainians and the Russians, the Russians are in the right for supporting self-proclaimed People’s Republics in the Donbas, despite every nation in the world agreeing that they are de jure Ukrainian territory despite being de facto occupied by Russia. Heck, once the sham ‘referendums’ are carried out in a few days and Russia recognizes them, and Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea as being de jure part of Russia, they’ll even have a leg up over the Republic of Artsakh in that a grand total of one nation in the UN (Russia) will recognize them as being de jure a part of Russia.

Completely agree. I find this tendency I’ve noticed by many in the West to to assume Armenia is in the right on this to be kind of problematic.

The Armenians started this a couple of years ago and got their clocks cleaned.

Only if by “this” you consider history to have begun two years ago and ignore the previous 33 years of low intensity conflict, the prior open war and accept that the latest open war a couple of years ago that began with an Azerbaijanian offensive was started by Armenian low-intensity conflict.

The past 35 years condensed into the two opening paragraphs on wiki:

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [f] is an ethnic[53][54] and territorial[49] conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians,[55][56][57][58] and seven surrounding districts, inhabited mostly by Azerbaijanis until their expulsion during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War.[59][60] Some of these territories are de facto controlled, and some are claimed by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh although they have been internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. The conflict has its origins in the early 20th century, but the present conflict began in 1988, when the Karabakh Armenians demanded transferring Karabakh from Soviet Azerbaijan to Soviet Armenia. The conflict escalated into a full-scale war in the early 1990s which later transformed into a low-intensity conflict until four-day escalation in April 2016 and then into another full-scale war in 2020.

A ceasefire signed in 1994 in Bishkek was followed by two decades of relative stability, which significantly deteriorated along with Azerbaijan’s increasing frustration with the status quo, at odds with Armenia’s efforts to cement it.[61] A four-day escalation in April 2016 became the deadliest ceasefire violation until the 2020 conflict.[62] A tentative armistice was established by the tripartite ceasefire agreement on November 10, 2020, by which most of the territories lost by Azerbaijan during the First Nagorno-Karabakh war were returned Azerbaijan’s control. The president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, claimed that the conflict has thus ended;[63] however the ceasefire agreement was followed by the 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis from May 2021 onwards, with continued casualties from both sides.

I actually read this as a sarcastic statement.

Well if you want that we can go well beyond.
But the current hostility was absolutely started by the Armenians, egged on by their massive diaspora in the West.

Oh I guess it was a serious statement. Any declaration about who “started” anything in that area is seriously missing the point, I think. Unless you are a serious partisan for one side

Most here are, for the Armenians.
That said, as I mentioned, blame for the current crisis is on the Armenians. I am not going back more than a couple of years since after both sides have plenty they have done wrong.