Why France Did Not Intervene in the Armenian-Turkish Conflict: A Logistical and Diplomatic Perspective

Understanding the complexities of international relations and military alliances, it is essential to explore why France did not intervene in the Armenia-Turkey conflict of 2020. Assertions that France is unreliable or cowardly overlook the intricate geopolitical landscape and the practical challenges that would have been involved in such an intervention.

What Exactly Was France Supposed to Do?

The question arises, what was France expected to do in the face of the Armenian-Turkish conflict in 2020? To the best of my knowledge, there was no binding military alliance that would have obligated France to intervene in any way. The historical context and current geopolitical climate make it clear that any intervention would have been far from straightforward.

Military Alliances and Binding Commitments

When considering military alliances and commitments, it is crucial to understand the nature of such agreements. A binding military alliance, such as those seen between NATO member states, involves mutual defense obligations. However, in the case of Armenia and France, there is no such formal alliance in place. Therefore, any expectation of France to intervene was not based on any existing legal or formal commitment.

The Complexity of the Caucasus Region

The conflict in the Caucasus region is a complex web of ethnic rivalries and intermingled interests. Involvement of outside forces, particularly a major power like France, without a concrete and binding agreement, could have been incredibly dangerous. Given the historical and current animosities in the region, an intervention would have had significant geopolitical repercussions.

Logistical Challenges of Any Potential Intervention

Even assuming the existence of a binding and credible commitment, the logistics of any help France could have offered present a formidable challenge.

Distance and Airspace Concerns

One of the primary logistical challenges would be the vast distance between Armenia and France. To send material aid or troops, France would need to navigate through Georgia, avoiding Turkish airspace, which is not a simple task. The prohibition on sea passage through Istanbul adds another layer of complexity. Simply put, the practical and logistical obstacles make such an intervention impractical.

Current Diplomatic Tensions

France is currently facing significant diplomatic tensions with Turkey, exacerbated by various issues including Muslim opinion against France. Engaging in a conflict with Turkey and Azerbaijan without a concrete agreement would involve a myriad of risks and uncertainties. France would face the risk of an outright war with Turkey, and the involvement of other countries against France, without any guarantee of support from Armenia.

The Real Culprit: Russia's Role in the Conflict

While France's inaction is often scrutinized, it is important to consider the role of Russia in the broader context of the conflict. Russia, which shares a history with Armenia as a former Soviet republic, has often sought to maintain its influence over the region. Russian President Vladimir Putin's reluctance to take a more active role over the past decade demonstrates a pattern of non-interference. This passivity is likely driven by a strategic interest in maintaining a state of hostility that allows Russia to act as the ultimate arbiter.

Armenia's Dependence on Russia

In reality, Armenia's ability to recover and thrive now depends heavily on Russia. With ongoing Russian influence, Armenia now finds itself in a weakened position, unlikely to regain stability or independence without Russian support. In this context, France's inaction is perhaps more about acknowledging that the underlying issues are more complex and politically nuanced than a simple promise to help.

Conclusion

While it is tempting to blame individual countries for shortcomings in international relations, a more balanced perspective reveals the intricate geopolitical challenges that underpinned France's decision not to intervene. Rather than labeling France as unreliable or cowardly, it is important to recognize the logistical complexities and the broader geopolitical context that influenced the outcome.