How ancient dust from the sea floor helps to explain climate history

A research team led by geoscientists of the University of Oldenburg, Germany, analyzed sediment cores from the South Pacific

UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG

Research News

 

IMAGE: 18 SEDIMENT CORES FROM THE SEABED WERE BROUGHT ON BOARD THE RESEARCH VESSEL "POLARSTERN " BY MEANS OF PLUNGERS AND GRAVITY SOUNDERS. view more 

CREDIT: KATHARINA PAHNKE / UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG

During the last Ice Age about 20,000 years ago, iron-containing dust acted as a fertilizer for marine phytoplankton in the South Pacific, promoting CO2 sequestration and thus the glacial cooling of the Earth. But where did the dust come from? Researchers led by Dr. Torben Struve, geoscientist at the University of Oldenburg, Germany, have investigated this open question of climate history, which is also relevant with respect to current climate change.

Using sediment cores from the sea floor, they found that a large part of the dust deposited in the southern South Pacific at that time had travelled an extremely long way. Up to 80 percent of the dust came from what is now north-west Argentina, from where it was transported almost completely around the globe by the prevailing westerly winds. After a voyage of up to 20,000 kilometres, it contributed significantly to the increased input of iron into the glacial South Pacific. The dust input from Australia, which dominates in the South Pacific today, played only a minor role. The research team has published these new insights into the mechanisms of natural iron input into the Southern Ocean in the journal Nature Communications.

"We have analysed the chemical fingerprint of the dust and compared it with geological data from several continents. This was laborious work, like a jigsaw puzzle," says Struve, a post-doctoral scientist in the research group "Marine Isotope Geochemistry" at the University's Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM). The team included researchers from his group as well as colleagues from the Alfred Wegener Institute - Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven (Germany), and from Columbia University, New York (USA).

The researchers sampled 18 sediment cores from the South Pacific between Antarctica, New Zealand and Chile, a study area which is roughly the size of Russia. Subsequently, they investigated the chemical composition of the dust contained in the samples. "This dust ultimately stems from rock, which has characteristic properties depending on its place of origin and geologic history so that each source has its own signature," Struve explains.

The researchers focused on trace metals, in particular rare earth elements and specific isotopes, that is variants of different weight, of the elements neodymium, lead and strontium. This signature is preserved over millions of years and thus provides reliable information about the origin of rock particles even after 20,000 years.

At that time, the last Ice Age was at its peak. According to the results, westerly winds blew dust particles from the eastern side of the central Andes in South America across the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. As such, the iron-bearing dust was transported once around the globe before being deposited in the middle latitudes of the South Pacific. Since algae in these waters usually lack iron as a crucial nutrient for growth, iron-containing dust acts as a natural fertiliser until today.

Like all plants, phytoplankton - microscopic algae - absorbs carbon by means of photosynthesis and thus reduces the proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. According to Struve, the greatly increased input of iron-bearing mineral dust into this marine region, primarily from South America, could help to explain "how the Earth could have become so cold at all at that time".

It was already known that the iron input during the last ice age was much higher than during the present warm period. "But we were surprised to find that the sources and transport routes of the dust were completely different from today and also different from what we would have expected."

The research team concludes that the unusually high dust emissions from South America must have made a significant contribution to the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere of the Ice Age. The input of iron-bearing mineral dust reduced the CO2 level of the atmosphere by up to 40 ppm ("parts per million"). This corresponds to almost half of the natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere over the last 400,000 years amounting to 100 ppm. To put this into perspective, since the beginning of industrialisation, anthropogenic emissions have increased the CO2 level from around 280 to around 415 ppm.

Today, no dust from South America can be detected in the study area. "Global warming has changed the winds and environmental conditions in the source regions," Struve says, who continues to study the sediment cores. Together with his colleagues, he wants to find out how the composition of the dust has changed since the peak of the ice age and how this may have contributed to climate change.

CAPTION

The individual sections of one of the investigated sediment cores. As the latter can be up to 30 metres long, they are usually dissected.

 

COVID Misinformation a Roadblock to Curbing Pandemic

Doctors are key in communicating facts to patients

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

Research News

 

IMAGE: HDFS PROFESSOR VALERIE EARNSHAW'S NEW RESEARCH CONFIRMS THAT STIGMA AROUND COVID-19 MAY LEAD PEOPLE TO AVOID TESTING AND THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE COVID CONSPIRACIES WILL BE LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT... view more 

CREDIT: PHOTO BY ELIZABETH ADAMS

The World Health Organization calls the spread of false information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) an "infodemic," and the results are broadly visible across society. The refusal of some people to wear a mask or socially distance, or self-quarantine when exposed to the virus, is often motivated by false information or conspiracy theories that are popular on social media.

So what are public health officials to do?

In a pair of newly published studies, University of Delaware researchers shed new light on the stigma, stereotypes and conspiracy theories that have spread alongside the novel coronavirus.

Understanding the impact of misinformation "is important for identifying potential barriers to public health efforts" to combat the virus, said Valerie Earnshaw, associate professor in UD's Department of Human Development and Family Sciences and lead author on both studies.

"Evidence suggests that people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories when they feel anxious, powerless, and unable to control their outcomes, as well as in times of crisis and when faced with large-scale events with serious consequences," she said. "Pandemics such as COVID-19 are powerful contexts wherein individuals may turn to conspiracy theories in an attempt to restore feelings of safety and control."

Ultimately, the more prominent the misinformation, the more difficult it will be for communities to bring the pandemic under control.

The first study, "Anticipated Stigma, Stereotypes, and COVID-19 Testing," which appeared in the journal Stigma and Health, suggests that stereotypes and anticipated stigma may be barriers to COVID-19 testing efforts. The results, Earnshaw said, are very similar to previous studies about HIV and Ebola stigma.

"We know from studies on mental illness and HIV that stigma will keep people from getting tested," said Earnshaw. "And stereotypes are one way that people experience stigma. Stereotypes are how stigma gets into our heads and shapes our views. Stereotypes help people feel safe. Stereotypes help people believe that those who get COVID, or HIV, are unlike them or doing the wrong thing. Stereotypes can sometimes give people a false security blanket."

Participants who anticipated more stigma, and those who endorsed more harmful stereotypes, reported that they would be less likely to get tested for COVID-19. By contrast, participants who demonstrated greater knowledge of COVID-19 reported that they would be more likely to get tested.

The second study, "COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, health behaviors, and policy support," which appeared in the journal Translational Behavioral Medicine, found that one-third of participants believed in one or more conspiracies about COVID-19, and the results suggest that belief in conspiracy theories makes a person less likely to support public health policies designed to slow the spread of the virus. Participants who believed in conspiracy theories said that they were less likely to get vaccinated and trusted public health experts less.

The results of both studies were derived from an online survey of 845 U.S. adults that was conducted in April 2020. The survey was posted to Amazon Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing marketplace that researchers use to "collect rapid, high-quality data for psychological studies," said Earnshaw.

Despite the prevalence of misinformation, both studies suggest that people trust their personal doctor, regardless of their conspiracy beliefs. In the first study, most participants agreed that they would get tested if ordered by their doctor. In the second study, over 90% said they trusted information about COVID-19 from their doctor.

"Medical doctors are highly trusted sources of medical information," said Earnshaw. "Doctors can play a leading role in combating misinformation because even people who believe conspiracy theories still believe information about COVID from their doctors."

###

 

$1 million to support manufacturing of COVID-19 treatments, vaccines at uOttawa, Ottawa Hospital

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

Research News

 

IMAGE: THE TEAM (CLOCKWISE FROM LEFT): DR. DUNCAN STEWART, DR. CAROLINA ILKOW, DR. BERNARD THÉBAUD, DR. JOHN BELL (DR. DAVID COURTMAN, NOT PICTURED). view more 

CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

Researchers from the University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital have been awarded $1,050,000 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support facilities for manufacturing innovative treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.

The funding will support new equipment and infrastructure at The Ottawa Hospital's Biotherapeutics Manufacturing Centre (BMC), which has been successfully manufacturing therapies using cells, genes and viruses for clinical trials in Canada and abroad for more than 10 years.

The funding will enhance the BMC's ability to support projects related to COVID-19, including:

• A clinical trial of a cell-based therapy for severely ill COVID-19 patients. It is hoped that this experimental therapy may be able to dampen an overactive immune response and help repair lung damage patients with severe COVID-19 infections;

• Antibody-based treatments for high-risk individuals who have been exposed to COVID-19;

• Vaccines for COVID-19, including a home-grown vaccine inspired by research on cancer-fighting viruses.

"Our Biotherapeutics Manufacturing Centre has already played a crucial role in launching more than 15 world-first clinical trials," said Dr. Duncan Stewart, Executive Vide-President of Research at The Ottawa Hospital and a professor at the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine.

"Today's funding will now allow us to harness this success to help in the global fight against COVID-19."

The funding was announced by the Canada Foundation for Innovation, as part of a national announcement of more than $28 million for infrastructure related to COVID-19 research.

###

    SHARE

 PRINT

 

Recommendations for fair and regulated access to a COVID-19 vaccine

Joint position paper of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), the German Ethics Council and the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina on ethical, legal and practical framework conditions

LEOPOLDINA

Research News

 

The first COVID-19 vaccines could be authorised as early as the start of 2021. However, in all likelihood, there will not be sufficient vaccine doses in the beginning for all the people willing to undergo vaccination. This is why prioritisation will be necessary. In the position paper published today, medical-epidemiological aspects of infection prevention are presented alongside ethical, legal and practical considerations. On this basis, the authors develop a framework for action for the initial prioritisation of vaccination measures against COVID-19.

Prioritisation helps with decisions on who should receive which vaccine first. However, prioritisation should not be based on medical-epidemiological findings alone. It is rather the case that ethical and legal considerations should play a decisive role, too.

According to the experts, decisive results on the characteristics of the vaccines from the ongoing clinical trials (phase 3) are not yet available. Consequently, a detailed recommendation by STIKO concerning priority groups for vaccination is still not possible at the present time. However, the ethical and legal principles according to which prioritisation is to be undertaken have already been established. In addition to self-determination, they are non-maleficence and protection of integrity, justice, fundamental equality of rights, solidarity and urgency.

These ethical and legal principles are reflected in concrete vaccination goals: prevention of severe courses of COVID-19 (hospitalisation) and deaths; protection of persons with an especially high work-related risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (occupational indication); prevention of transmission and protection in environments with a high proportion of vulnerable individuals and in those with a high outbreak potential; maintenance of essential state functions and public life.

The paper points out that the distribution of the initially scarce vaccines touches on relevant ethical values and values pertaining to basic rights, and therefore necessitates clear legal regulation. Furthermore, vaccine distribution is to be organised in such a way as to ensure that the vaccination goals are achieved. This requires suitable new structures. Uniform, transparent distribution is needed that inspires confidence and ensures acceptance. This argues in favour of a vaccination strategy that relies not on individual general practitioners but on vaccination centres mandated by the state.

In principle, informed, voluntary consent is required for vaccination. Therefore, prioritisation criteria must be presented to the population in a comprehensible way. Furthermore, the authors of this position paper also rule out undifferentiated, general compulsory vaccination.

Experts are of the opinion that a self-determined decision about vaccination is dependent on ongoing, transparent information and education of the population regarding both the efficacy of vaccination and the associated risks. In order to identify and minimise vaccination risks at an early stage, the timely nationwide recording of all vaccinations and an evaluation of adverse events must be established in parallel to vaccination. To this end, the authors call for the product-based recording of COVID-19 vaccinations in a central database, also for the purpose of exactly determining vaccination coverage rates.

###

The position paper is available online at:

http://www.stiko.de

http://www.ethikrat.org

http://www.leopoldina.org/en

 

Efforts needed to better integrate family caregivers into health care teams

Study outlines ways to provide more support to family caregivers

RAND CORPORATION

Research News

 

Integrating family caregivers into a patient's health care team can help improve care quality and the quality of life for both patients and their families, yet family caregivers face significant barriers coordinating their efforts with the formal health care team, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

New policies and approaches may be needed to overcome those hurdles, such as rules to identify and record information on family caregivers, and incentives to encourage providers to engage with family caregivers.

Additional efforts suggested by researchers are investing in programs that provide supportive services for family caregivers, as well as expanding access to and funding for care coordinators to support caregivers and connect them to a family member's clinical information.

"Family caregivers too often are treated as secondary members of the care team, with little direct access to the formal health care providers," said Esther M. Friedman, lead author of the report and a sociologist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "We hope our research helps start a conversation about ways to better integrate family caregivers into the health care team."

Other strategies recommended by researchers are implementing training programs for providers and caregivers to facilitate effective communication, and encouraging leaders to develop technologies that foster caregiver-provider care integration and information sharing.

An estimated 53 million family and friends provide care assistance to loved ones in the United States, an increase of 9.5 million caregivers from 2015 to 2020. These family members typically provide assistance with everyday activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, driving and taking medications.

Family caregivers have direct and frequent access to loved ones with caregiving needs. More than one-third of care recipients live with their family caregiver and 55 percent of caregivers visit the care recipient more than once a week.

These regular interactions allow family caregivers to monitor changes in health and care needs on a more regular basis than would be possible for formal health care providers.

To better understand the barriers that face family caregivers and how to mitigate those obstacles, RAND researchers reviewed the research literature and interviewed 13 experts from diverse stakeholder groups. The study is among the first to focus in depth on integrating family caregivers into the health care team by incorporating interviews with payers, providers and caregiver advocates.

RAND researchers defined family caregiver integration to include communication, collaboration and coordination with providers, broadly defined as individuals or organizations that deliver care or health care services or help coordinate care for people with caregiving needs. The health care team may include physicians, nurses, social workers, care coordinators, and private sector health and care service providers.

"The goal of this study is to identify promising policy directions and provide a blueprint for assessing, developing and implementing policies to improve integration of family caregivers into the health care team," said study co-author Patricia K. Tong, a RAND economist.

The report found that barriers to integration fell under four themes: identifying caregivers, communication and information-sharing, time limitations and competing demands, and trust and cultural barriers.

Researchers say that future work is needed to expand and assess policy approaches through stakeholder engaged consensus methods, assess the availability of evidence-based research, assess each approach on metrics of feasibility and impact, evaluate approaches for their cost effectiveness, and build consensus on how best to implement the most-promising choices.

###

The study was sponsored by Seniorlink, a tech-enabled health services company that builds care collaboration solutions.

The study, "A Framework for Integrating Family Caregivers into the Health Care Team," is available at http://www.rand.org.

RAND Health Care promotes healthier societies by improving health care systems in the United States and other countries.

  Anger in Yerevan as Armenia, Azerbaijan agree to end war in Nagorno-Karabakh

November 10, 2020

Marek Grzegorczyk

Armenia effectively admits defeat in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, and will be forced to cede territory held since 1994.

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia signed an agreement early on November 10 to end almost two months of fighting in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The agreement, which came just hours after Armenian officials confirmed that the key city of Shusha (known as Shushi in Armenia), the second-biggest city in the enclave, had been taken by Azeri forces, was described by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan as “unspeakably painful”.

“[This] agreement as the best possible solution to the current situation,” said Mr Pashinyan. “While it is unspeakably painful for me personally and for our people, it follows an in-depth analysis of the military situation”. The agreement follows weeks of advances by Azeri troops who, in possession of more modern weapons, have overpowered Armenian forces.

The announcement of a full ceasefire sparked a violent response in Armenia, with angry protesters storming government buildings in Yerevan where they ransacked offices and broke windows. Videos published on social media appeared to show protesters dragging Ararat Mirzoyan, the speaker of the country’s parliament, out of his car and beating him on the street. His injuries were so bad that he had to be hospitalised.

Protesters also attempted to storm Mr Pashinyan’s home but were turned back by a heavy police presence.

Azerbaijan’s defence ministry released a video Monday showing the country’s flag flying on public buildings in Shusha, which is just 10 kilometres from the regional capital Stepanakert. The video shows deserted streets and damaged buildings.

Later on Monday, Azerbaijan apologised for downing a Russian helicopter near the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, saying it was an accident.

Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev said the agreement was “historic” and that Armenia had been forced to negotiate because of Azerbaijan’s military successes.

“This statement has historic significance,” he wrote on Twitter. “This statement constitutes Armenia’s capitulation. This statement puts an end to the years-long occupation. This statement is our Glorious Victory!”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the two sides would hold on to areas in Nagorno-Karabakh under their control and that Russian peacekeepers would be deployed along frontlines and to secure a corridor connecting the region with Armenia. However, Armenia will be forced to hand the strip of land – which it has occupied since 1994 – that sits between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia by December 1.

The unrest in Nagorno-Karabakh dates back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the region, backed by Armenia, declared independence from Azerbaijan.

Shusha was captured by Armenian forces in 1992 and Nagorno-Karabakh established a de facto independence that is not recognized by most of the world. A 1994 ceasefire brought the violent conflict over the enclave to an end, but tensions continued, with irregular skirmishes between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces.

Azerbaijan has long claimed it would retake the territory, which is internationally recognized as Azerbaijani.

Since the resumption of fighting in September, as many as 5,000 people have been killed, and as many as 40,000 ethnic Armenians have been forced to flee the region.

Mr Pashinyan, who took office in 2018 the wake of widespread protests that forced the resignation of his predecessor, Serzh Sargsyan, now faces a battle to cling on to power. Protests are likely to continue, and 17 opposition parties have called for Mr Pashinyan’s resignation.

The 17 parties have vowed to overturn the peace agreement and resume fighting should they be successful in removing Mr Pashinyan’s government.

Will Lavender, a senior policy and advocacy officer at the European Friends of Armenia, a Brussels based NGO which seeks to promote EU-Armenian relations, says that it is very difficult at this point to see where things will go in Armenia.

“So far the public reaction has been very negative and we have witnessed turbulent scenes in Yerevan,” he says. “The deal is by no means seen in terms of peace, but in terms of surrender.”

Mr Lavender was also critical of the European Union, which he describes as “absent”.

“By and large this is a Russian-imposed peace, which will see Russian troops heavily ensconced in the region and will dramatically alter the balance in Russia-Armenia relationship. This will have long term implications for Armenia’s domestic politics and its relationship with the EU,” he says.

“Once again, the EU has been completely absent, despite the Eastern Partnership’s aims of bringing the rule of law and democracy to its neighbourhood. This peace has emboldened autocratic Azerbaijan and could undermine pro-western/pro-democratic trends in Armenia.”

Armenian Opposition demanding PM to resign - 'It's most shameful day in our history!'

ARMENIA10 November 2020

Signing trilateral declaration proves that Azerbaijan was just standing for its rights on Karabakh - US expert
NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT10 November 2020 12:44 (UTC+04:00)








BAKU, Azerbaijan, Nov.10

By Nargiz Sadikhova - Trend:

Signing a trilateral declaration of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and the President of the Russian Federation proves to the world that Azerbaijan was just standing for its rights on Nagorno Karabakh, US-based military expert Benjamin Minik told Trend.

“If the agreement holds, truthfully this will be an amazing thing,” Minik said.

Minik explained that Azerbaijan can now focus on rebuilding the areas that have been occupied for 30 years and hundreds of thousands of people will have homes again.

“This proves to the world that Azerbaijan was just standing for its rights. I am proud of, and for all of you. I'm proud to have stood with all of you,” Minik said.

Following over a month of military action to liberate its territories from Armenian occupation, Azerbaijan has pushed Armenia to sign the surrender document. A joint statement on the matter was made by Azerbaijani president, Armenia's PM and the president of Russia.

A complete ceasefire and a cessation of all hostilities in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is introduced at 00:00 hours (Moscow time) on 10 November 2020.

Armenian Armed Forces launched a large-scale military attack on positions of Azerbaijani army on the front line, using large-caliber weapons, mortars and artillery on Sept. 27. Azerbaijan responded with a counter-offensive along the entire front.

Back in July 2020, Armenian Armed Forces violated the ceasefire in the direction of Azerbaijan's Tovuz district. As a result of Azerbaijan's retaliation, the opposing forces were silenced. The fighting continued the following days as well. Azerbaijan lost a number of military personnel members, who died fighting off the attacks of the Armenian Armed Forces.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, Armenian Armed Forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts. The 1994 ceasefire agreement was followed by peace negotiations.

BAKU, Azerbaijan, Nov.10

 

Trend:

The most shameful page of our history has been written today, said Iveta Tonoyan, a member of the Prosperous Armenia opposition party, Trend reports.

“A few hours ago, the Prosperous Armenia and a number of other parties demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister. After all this, the resignation is the least that Pashinyan must do,” Tonoyan said.

The MP stated that she was near the building of the Armenian government in order to prevent clashes between citizens and the police.

“We came to calm the anger of people, which is quite objective and understandable. Here are people whose fathers, brothers and sons fell on the battlefield. And at the same time, secretly, without taking into account public opinion, it was decided to transfer the lands, give Shusha away with a piece of paper", noted the MP.

She added that in the morning of Nov.10 the party will convene a meeting under the chairmanship of the party leader Gagik Tsarukyan, after which she will make a statement.

President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation made a joint statement. A complete ceasefire and a cessation of all hostilities in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict shall be introduced at 00:00 hours Moscow time on 10 November 2020.

Armenian Armed Forces launched a large-scale military attack on positions of Azerbaijani army on the front line, using large-caliber weapons, mortars and artillery on Sept. 27. Azerbaijan responded with a counter-offensive along the entire front. Currently, Azerbaijan continues the liberation of its territories from Armenian troops.

Back in July 2020, Armenian Armed Forces violated the ceasefire in the direction of Azerbaijan's Tovuz district. As a result of Azerbaijan's retaliation, the opposing forces were silenced. The fighting continued the following days as well. Azerbaijan lost a number of military personnel members, who died fighting off the attacks of the Armenian Armed Forces.
The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, Armenian Armed Forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts. The 1994 ceasefire agreement was followed by peace negotiations.

President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation made a joint statement. A complete ceasefire and a cessation of all hostilities in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict shall be introduced at 00:00 hours Moscow time on 10 November 2020.

Armenian Armed Forces launched a large-scale military attack on positions of Azerbaijani army on the front line, using large-caliber weapons, mortars and artillery on Sept. 27. Azerbaijan responded with a counter-offensive along the entire front. Currently, Azerbaijan continues the liberation of its territories from Armenian troops.

Back in July 2020, Armenian Armed Forces violated the ceasefire in the direction of Azerbaijan's Tovuz district. As a result of Azerbaijan's retaliation, the opposing forces were silenced. The fighting continued the following days as well. Azerbaijan lost a number of military personnel members, who died fighting off the attacks of the Armenian Armed Forces.
The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, Armenian Armed Forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts. The 1994 ceasefire agreement was followed by peace negotiation

 Russian Ceasefire Deal in Nagorno-Karabakh Marks Slow, Painful End of Empire in the South Caucasus

Azerbaijan is triumphant — but its triumph, while recognized by Russia, was really delivered by Turkey.

By Mark Galeotti

AP / TASS

Does the Russian-brokered ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan represent a victory for Moscow? The tragic coincidence with the shooting down of a Russian helicopter suggests that this is really about the Kremlin’s efforts to manage its decline.

The trilateral deal essentially fixes Baku’s recent territorial gains. Armenian forces have to withdraw from regions such as the politically-significant eastern district of Agdam and the strategically-crucial Lachin region, through which runs the main road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.

That road, the so-called Lachin corridor, will remain open, a lifeline guaranteed by 1,960 Russian peacekeepers, who will also monitor the new line of contact. These troops, from the combat-experienced 31st Independent Guards Air Assault Brigade, have already arrived in-theatre.

While there is massive popular dissatisfaction in Armenia about Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s acceptance of the deal — he himself admitted it was "incredibly painful both for me and for our people" — this is essentially a fait accompli. It was also made all but inevitable by the fall of the strategic town of Shushi to Azerbaijan’s forces, the gateway to Karabakh's main city, Stepanakert.

NEWS
Nagorno-Karabakh Briefing | Nov. 10


For Armenia, this at least staves off a more comprehensive defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh. For Azerbaijan, whose forces had taken heavy losses to get this far, President Ilham Aliyev has been able to crow that this represented Yerevan’s "capitulation."

But what does it mean for Moscow? The Kremlin has long regarded the South Caucasus as part of its "Near Abroad" sphere of influence. Not an empire as such, but a region in which it has to be acknowledged as regional hegemon.

Its inability and seeming unwillingness to control this six-week war had become increasingly problematic, especially as Armenia — unlike Azerbaijan, still a member of the CSTO, Russia’s increasingly-threadbare answer to NATO — was suffering attacks even on its own territory.

This was all the more serious given Turkey’s extensive and evident support for Azerbaijan. It is not just that the Azerbaijanis were deploying Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones to deadly effect, but Ankara has deployed F-16 fighters to Ganja airport, presumably to deter Armenian attacks, and according to admittedly contested reports have also sent Syrian mercenaries and command personnel.

This represented a clear challenge to Russian regional hegemony. In that context, it is noticeable that the ceasefire deal was a trilateral one, concluded between Moscow, Baku and Erevan (although Aliyev also claims that Turkey will play a role in monitoring the deal).

So is this Moscow finally asserting its role as regional hegemon? Not so much.

NEWS
Wary Armenians and Azerbaijanis Watch War From Moscow


Armenia, which put its faith in Russia’s protection against larger, richer and far better armed Azerbaijan, has in effect been forced to accept defeat. While some might see it pleased also to undermine Pashinyan, as a liberal elevated by one of the infamous ‘color revolutions’ that so exercise the Kremlin, it is hard to see that any alternative government would be any more friendly, now. Armenians do not appear to be considering the Russians as their saviors.

Azerbaijan is triumphant — but its triumph, while recognized by Russia, was really delivered by Turkey. Aliyev makes no bones about this, and in his speech about the ceasefire referred to Putin in neutral terms while thanking "my dear brother Recep Tayyip Erdoğan."

Managing decline

Russia may have the role of peacekeeper, but it is worth noting that this is an additional burden on its military and treasury. It does bake a role for itself into the geopolitics of the region, to be sure, but this was a part of the world in which it was already meant to be dominant? When you have to escalate your commitment to retain your position, that does not seem a sign of progress so much as laboring to hold back decline.

Whether or not Turkish officers do end up working in the new peacekeeping center for ceasefire control is in many ways irrelevant. In a pattern reminiscent of the changing orientation in Central Asia — where Moscow retains the overt trappings of hegemony, while behind the scenes Beijing’s economic power is increasingly dominant — so too in the South Caucasus, Russia is having to accept new players in what was once its unquestioned backyard.

The irony is that it is not that Russia did not have the political and military muscle to act more quickly and decisively, had it wanted to.

The response to the shooting down of its aircraft in many ways demonstrates a decay in Moscow’s will, its capacity to maintain its imperial pretensions that has been evident for some time.

On the same day as the ceasefire agreement, an Azerbaijani surface-to-air missile shot down a Russian Mi-24 helicopter gunship well in Armenian airspace as it was escorting a Russian military convoy to its 102nd Military Base in Gyumri. Two crewmen were killed.

NEWS
Azerbaijan Downs Russian Helicopter in Armenia as Fighting Rages Over Karabakh

Baku has extended its apologies, after a fashion. Although the action was well away from the conflict zone, the Azeris highlighted that it was flying at night and at low altitude — hardly surprising for a convoy escort — and "in the context of these factors and in light of the tense situation in the region and increased combat readiness in connection with possible provocations of the Armenian side, the duty combat crew decided to open fire to kill."

An immediate parallel has been drawn with the shooting down in November 2015 of a Russian Su-24 bomber that was involved in combat operations in northern Syria when it cut across Turkish airspace. Then, a clearly furious Putin denounced the act as a "stab in the back by terrorist accomplices." Sanctions were then imposed on everything from package holidays to Turkish tomatoes.

Moscow's bluster ended up masking weakness. Eventually, Erdoğan delivered his condolences, carefully framed not to be an apology. Nonetheless, the Kremlin chose to pretend that this is exactly what had been offered, and the sanctions were lifted.

Moscow pretended that honor had been satisfied. In fact, Erdoğan had outstared Putin.

Likewise, this time the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed its satisfaction that "Baku immediately admitted its guilt... We also note the assurances given by the Azerbaijani side that an operative investigation of this incident will be carried out."

In other words, the matter is over, and the two dead pilots will not be avenged or likely even remembered.

This is neither mature statecraft not self-confident hegemony. This is managing decline, a Russia that in regional terms is strong in capacities, weak in will, trying to make the best of a situation, and in the process disappointing its allies and doing nothing to deter its challengers. All one can say is that at least the guns are silent now — but for how long?
The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times.


Prof. Mark Galeotti is a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and a Honorary Professor at the UCL School of Slavonic & East European Studies.

What did Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia leaders agree on?

10.11.2020

Region:Armenia, Karabakh, Azerbaijan, Russia
Theme: Politics


Civilnet.am has presented the English-language text of the statement that was signed overnight between the Prime Minister of Armenia and the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia. The text reads as follows, in particular:

“We, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan I. G. Aliyev, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikolai Pashinyan and President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin announced the following:

1. A complete ceasefire and all hostilities in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are announced from 00:00 hours Moscow time on November 10, 2020. The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, hereinafter referred to as the Parties, stop at their positions.

2. The Aghdam region and the territories held by the Armenian Party in the Gazakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall be returned to the Azerbaijan Party until November 20, 2020.

3. Along the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh and along the Lachin corridor, a peacekeeping contingent of the Russian Federation is deployed in the amount of 1,960 servicemen with small arms, 90 armored personnel carriers, 380 units of automobile and special equipment.

4. The peacekeeping contingent of the Russian Federation is being deployed in parallel with the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces. The duration of the stay of the peacekeeping contingent of the Russian Federation is 5 years, with automatic extension for the next 5-year periods, if none of the Parties declares 6 months before the expiration of the period of intention to terminate the application of this provision.

5. In order to increase the effectiveness of control over the implementation of the agreements by the Parties to the conflict, a peacekeeping center is being deployed to control the ceasefire.

6. The Republic of Armenia will return the Kelbajar region to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin region by December 1, 2020, leaving behind the Lachin corridor (5 km wide), which will ensure the connection of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia and at the same time not will affect the city of Shusha [(Shushi)].

By agreement of the Parties, in the next three years, a plan for the construction of a new traffic route along the Lachin corridor, providing communication between Stepanakert and Armenia, with the subsequent redeployment of the Russian peacekeeping contingent to protect this route will be determined.

The Republic of Azerbaijan guarantees traffic safety along the Lachin corridor of citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions.

7. Internally displaced persons and refugees are returning to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent areas under the control of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

8. There is an exchange of prisoners of war and other detained persons and bodies of the dead.

9. All economic and transport links in the region are unblocked. The Republic of Armenia provides transport links between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic in order to organize the unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles and goods in both directions. Control over transport communication is carried out by the bodies of the Border Guard Service of the FSB of Russia.

By agreement of the Parties, the construction of new transport communications linking the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic with the western regions of Azerbaijan will be provided.”

Armenia PM: Why was Karabakh statement’s content not presented to public before its signing?
10.11.2020
Region:Armenia, Karabakh, Azerbaijan
Theme: Politics

There is a certain public discussion why there was no public informing in advance about the statement being signed [regarding the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) war], and there is a very specific reason for that. Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan noted about this during his Facebook livestream on Tuesday.

"First, I myself have admitted that the content of that statement is not good for us [the Armenian party to the Karabakh conflict]. Imagine a situation where that content is presented and as a result, it is not signed for some reason. That would have had a very negative consequence on our combat-readiness; that is, if it had not been signed, and for example, a decision had been made to cease hostilities, it would have turned out that there was talk of a content which did not lead at least to a cessation of hostilities, but led to a decrease in combat-readiness," Pashinyan said.

The other reason, according to the Armenian, is that when you present the content to the public, you should also explain why you do such a thing. "If you do that simultaneously with the hostilities, with that, you also reveal some of your weaknesses to the adversary. And if suddenly it [the statement] is not signed, or the adversary gains an advantage by knowing your weaknesses, this in some way affects further processes and, in general, the defense capacity and combat-readiness," Nikol Pashinyan added.

Protesters assemble at Armenia parliament courtyard
 10.11.2020
Region:Armenia, Karabakh, Azerbaijan
Theme: Politics, Society

YEREVAN. – The people who are protesting at the courtyard of the National Assembly (NA) of Armenia—and in defense of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)—have closed off Baghramyan Avenue that runs along the parliament premises.

There is a large number of police forces in the area.

The protesters are demanding the cancellation of the signing of the agreement which envisages considerable territorial concessions by the Armenian party to the Karabakh conflict.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced at midnight that he had signed a document that was painful for Artsakh, and since then protests are being staged in Armenia.

At night, a group of protesters stormed the government and NA buildings.