Armenia on the map of “War and Peace”

Based on answers to the question “Would you fight for your country?” of the survey, conducted in 2023 by the Gallup International in 45 countries, including Armenia, the map of «War and Peace» is constructed. The 2023 results are compared with the results of a similar survey, conducted in 2014. The level of “determination” of several countries (groups of countries) to fight for their countries is calculated. The concept of “intensity” of regional conflicts is introduced and the values are calculated for several regional conflicts, including for confrontation between global “South” and “North”.

Հիմնվելով Gallup International Association կազմակերպության կողմից 2023 թ. աշխարհի 45 երկրներում, այդ թվում՝ Հայաստանում անցկացված հարցման՝ «Կկռվե՞ք, արդյոք, ձեր երկրի համար» հարցի պատասխանների վերլուծության վրա, կառուցվում է աշխարհի «Պատերազմի և Խաղաղության» քարտեզը։ 2023 թ․ արդյունքները համեմատվում են ավելի վաղ (2014 թ.) անցկացված հարցման արդյունքների հետ։ Հաշվարկվում է առանձին երկրների (երկրների խմբերի) խմբերի «վճռականության» աստիճանը կռվել իրենց երկրների համար։ Ներմուծվում է տարածաշրջանային հակամարտությունների «լարվածության» հասկացությունը, հաշվարկվում է դրա արժեքը որոշ հակամարտությունների, այդ թվում նաև գլոբալ «Հարավ» և «Հյուսիս» տարածաշրջանների դիամակայության համար:

На основе анализа ответов на вопрос «Будете ли вы сражаться за свою страну?» опроса Gallup International Association, проведенного в 2023 году в 45 странах, включая Армению, построена карта «Войны и Мира». Проводится сравнительный анализ с результатами аналогичного опроса, проведенного в 2014 году. Рассчитываются уровни «решительности» бороться за свои страны для некоторых групп стран. Введено понятие «накала» ряда региональных конфликтов, рассчитаны их значения, в том числе для противостояния стран глобальных «Юга» и «Севера».

Ara H. Marjanyan⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

INTRODUCTION

Among the questions of the Gallup International Association (GIA) “Global Barometer of Hope and Despair” survey, conducted at the end of 2023 in 45 countries, including Armenia, the following one was presented to respondents: “If there were a war that involved (YOUR COUNTRY), would you be willing to fight for your country?”, with the options of answers “Yes”, “No”, “Don’t know”⁽³⁾.

In our previous article [1] preliminary analysis of obtained results, as well as analysis of the linguistic aspects of multilanguage international polls were carried out. Bellow we will provide in-depth analysis of the results in a broader cultural and historic context, and in a longer time span. The numbering of sections continues the numeration of [1].

3. MAP of “WAR and PEACE”

“With the correct opening of the parenthesis,
/ With the remainder / And with the quotient”
Paruyr Sevak, 1957⁽⁴⁾

Even a simple presentation of the GIA 2023 results in a form of ranked charts, ordered by decreasing of country-specific “Yes” answers (%), carried out in [1], indicates the presence of a complex and rich picture, hidden behind “linear” representation by ordered charts. One can assume, that data (obtained country-specific “Yes”, “No”, “DK/NR answers), group the countries of the survey in a more “meaningful” way, depending on some “hidden parameters”, such as history, geography, religion, language, etc.

To identify this qualitative picture, we will focus not only, and not so much, on the “absolute” values (%) of “Yes”, “No” and “DK/NR” answers, but rather to their “specific” values, referred to the corresponding overall-averages of all 45 countries. Here we will follow the methodology, developed for constructing of the Map of “Worlds of the World” [2] based on qualitative picture of the R&D data (as % of GDP) of various countries (groups of countries), or the Map of “Primate Cities” of the world, including Yerevan [3]. For that, we will consider the arithmetic differences between the country-specific answers “Yes”, “No” and “DK/NR” from their averages. It is natural to interpret the difference in “Yes” answers as a measure of the “Decisiveness” of countries to fight, and the difference in “No” answers as a measure of the “Pacifism”.

In other words, we will build a two-dimensional map of “War and Peace”⁽⁵⁾, where along the Y-axis (“Decisiveness”) we will place the difference in country-specific “Yes” answers from the overall-average for 45 countries. And on the X-axis (“Pacifism”) – the difference between overall-average “No” answer for 45 countries from the country-specific answers “No”. In order to provide some “3-dimensionality” to the picture, we will use “bubble diagram”, were the diameter of each “bubble”, representing the given country, is proportional to the “DK/NR” answers (%).

Chart 1. Map of “War and Peace”. Based on GIA 2023 Survey (45 countries).

The resulted bubble diagram was presented in Chart 1. The “hidden picture”, the presence of which we anticipate in [1], appears here quite clearly. Before beginning to analise it, we will note the following.

The introduced coordinates of the map, naturally divide the surface of our “War and Peace” map to two distinct, qualitatively different parts. Indeed, in the upper half-plane of the map (Chr. 1) – which we will call the “Belligerent” countries area, are situated countries for which country-specific “Yes” answers to the posed question exceed the survey”s overall-average value for “Yes”. In the lower half-plane, less “Belligerent” countries are situated, for which country-specific “Yes” answers are less than the overall-average.

Moreover, the four Quarters that make up entire Map of “War and Peace” also have their own, qualitative meaning: in fact, this is the essence of the proposed method. Quarter I units a group of countries, where the percentage of “Yes” answers was more, and the percentage of “No” answers was less than the overall average of survey. We will call Quarter I “Decisive Countries” Quarter. The Quarter II, which we will call “Indecisive Pacifists” Quarter, unites countries that gave “Yes” and “No” answers less than their averages. The Quarter III of “Pacifists Countries” will include countries that gave “Yes” answers less and “No” answers more than the averages. Finally, Quarter IV, which we will call “Indecisive Warriors” Quarter, includes those countries for which both the “Yes” and “No” answers are greater than the averages. For greater clarity of obtained picture, we will use specific color for the countries located in each of these four Quarters of the map, see Chr. 1.

On this map, Armenia with the coordinates Х=32%, [34% _{(Average “No”)} – 2% _{(“No”, Armenia)}], Y=44%, [96% _{(“Yes”, Armenia)} – 52% _{(Average “Yes”)}], and with the diameter of “bubble” proportional to 2% of “DK/NR” answers, is positioned in the uppermost and rightmost part of Quarter I of “Decisive Countries”. The imaginative “Average” country of the GIA 2023 survey, is located in the point of origin of the map, with Х=0%, Y=0% and the diameter of bubble proportional to 15% (average of “DK/NR” answers for all 45 countries of the survey). And Japan, for example, is positioned quite opposite to Armenia – in the extreme lower part of Quarter III of “Pacifists”, with coordinates X=-16%, Y=-43% and diameter of bubble proportional to 41%, (for country-specific values see [1]).

4. GLOBAL REGIONS on the MAP of “WAR and PEACE”

“Ship me somewhere east of Suez, / where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren’t no Ten Commandments / an’ a man can raise a thirst”
R. Kipling, 1890⁽⁶⁾

As was expected, the 2023 Map of “War and Peace” (Chr. 1) clearly demonstrate the characteristic patterns of the individual countries and the different groups of countries distribution on the plane of our map. The first thing we will start with, is the distribution of the countries belonging to the so-called global “North” and “South” regions.

The classic definition of the global “North” and “South” regions was presented in the once famous UN “Brandt Commission” report⁽⁷⁾ of 1980. The rich and prosperous “North” region included developed countries with GDP per capita over $10.7 thousand (in constant $2010). The “South” region basically collects the countries from the rest of the World. The 1980 report presents the so-called “Brandt Line”, separating “North” region from “South”, which we reproduce on Map 1. This map was taken from our earlier work on “North” and “South”, generational waves, and historical politics [6], which was accomplished long before, when talks about global “North” and “South” became fashionable again⁽⁸⁾.

Map 1. The 1980 “Brandt line”, separating the global “North” and “South”. Source [6].

Strictly “economical” approach of the Brandt Commission toward definition of global regions was criticized already in the mid-80s, almost immediately after the publication of Brandt Commissions first report. For example, it was pointed out, that for adequate division between the “North” and the “South”, some other than GDP per capita parameters, mainly demographic and social in nature, should be taken into consideration as well. It was noted that the countries belonging to the “North” are characterized by the “inverse” population age structure diagram, the predominance of the urban population over the rural, and by higher portion of the population with higher education.

In the contrary, the countries of the “South” are characterized by the real “pyramidal” diagram, often with noticeable “Youth Bulge” near the base of the population diagram, as well as by predominance of the rural population over the urban, and by relatively low portion of the population with higher education (for more details, see [6]).

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 and dissolution of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon, “СЭВ” in Russian), as well as the rapid development of information technology (IT) and digital economy, and most importantly, the growth of inequality and uneven economic development, led to the fundamental changes in the societies of many countries and entire regions. Under these new conditions, it became pressing necessity to modernize the definition of global “North” and “South”, and develop new, “Modernized Brandt Line” based on combined criterion, which, along with GDP, population age and education structure, will take into account such parameters as “Technological readiness”, level of R&D expenditures (% from GDP) and IT development level, [6].

Such a “Modernized Brandt Line” significantly changed the configuration of Map 1. For example, all Comecon countries, as well as all former republics of the USSR, except from the Baltic countries and the Russian Federation (RF), dropped out of the “Global North”. The new, “modernized” “Global North” essentially includes the USA, Canada, Western and Northern (but not Eastern) Europe, RF, South. Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Returning to the GIA 2023 poll, and the question “would you fight for your country?”, let us note that 14 countries out of 45 covered belongs to the “Global North”, and the remaining 31 – to the “Global South”. Now we are ready for our first observation.

In the upper half-plane of our “War and Peace” Map (Chr. 1), where “Belligerent” countries are situated, only the countries from the “Global South” are present. There are 21 of them i.e., 68% of all 31 countries of the “Global South”, covered by the 2023 survey. Moreover, 19 of them are situated in Quarter I of the “Decisive countries”, for which the “Yes” answers were higher and “No” answers were lower than the overall-averages.

In the contrary, all 14 countries from “Global North” covered by GIA 2023 survey, without exception are located in the lower half of our Map (less “Belligerent” countries). Moreover, they comprise 60% of all 20 countries located in Quarter III of the “Pacifists” (12 “Global North” countries out of 20). Only two countries from the “Global North,” RF and Sweden, are situated in Quarter II of the “Indecisive Pacifists”, along with Argentina and Poland from the “Global South”.

Table 1.

Group averages (%) of “Yes”, “No”, “DK/NR” answers for the “Global South”
and “Global North”. According to the GIA 2023 survey.

Let us stress this qualitative picture quantitively, by numbers. For that reason, in Tab. 1 we present the group averages (%) of “Yes”, “No” and “DK/NR” answers, calculated separately for the 31 countries of the “Global South” (right) and for 14 countries of the “Global North” (left). For the sake of clarity, in the center of the Tab. 1 we present the overall averages of “Yes”, “No” and “DK/NR” answers, calculated for all 45 countries of GIA 2023 survey without any distinction between them⁽⁹⁾.

As we can see, the number of respondents from the countries of the “South” who answered “Yes” (61%) is almost twice as high as the number of similar respondents from the “North” (31%). Moreover, the answer “Yes” of the “South” is 9.3% more than the overall average (51.7%), at the same time, the answer “Yes” of the “North” is 20.6% less than the overall average. Conversely, the “No” answer of the “Global North” (44%) is almost 1.5 times higher than the “No” answer of the “South” (29%). In addition, the answers “No” of the “North” are 10.5% higher than the overall average (33.7%). Finally, the number of “indecisive” respondents from the “North” (25%) is 2.5 times higher than the similar number of the “South” (10%).

In our opinion, all this defines the fragile geopolitical balance of the modern world, pointing out to the main confrontation of our post-ideological and post-bipolar world: the confrontation between the global “North” and “South”. The distribution of the countries of the “belligerent” “Global South” and the “pacifist” “North” on our Map of “War and Peace” (Chr. 1), form a kind of giant “teeterboard”, swinged around the main diagonal of the Мap, connecting upper right corner of Quarter I to the lower left corner of Quarter III⁽¹⁰⁾.

Our second observation is connected to the South Caucasus region. Map of “War and Peace” clearly depicted the exceptional position of the top 5 countries by answer “Yes” (Armenia, S. Arabia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Georgia, [1]), all of course from “Global South”. On the Map they form a clear subgroup of countries in Quarter I of “Decisive Countries” – we have highlighted them with an ellipse, and called it the “Warriors” subgroup (Chr. 1). And again, we stress, that the 3 counties from out of 5 countries of this “Warriors” subgroup, are the all countries of the South Caucasus region.

On the opposite side of the Map, in Quarter III of “Pacifists Countries” we clearly see subgroup of its own. We have also highlighted it with an ellipse and called them “Defeatists” subgroup. It consists of 4 countries (Japan, Italy, Austria, Germany) all from the global “North” that gave the lowest percentage of “Yes” answers and the highest percentage of “No” answers to the question posed. The 5^th country – Spain, is located very close to the them. Graphically, these “Defeatist” countries serve as a kind of “balancer” to the five “Warriors” of Quarter I, on a kind of giant swing of “War and Peace teeterboard”. Which brings us to our third observation.

It is noticeable that 3 of out of 4 “Defeatist” countries (Japan, Italy, Germany) in Quarter III are the three “Axis Powers” of World War II. The 4^th country of this subgroup – Austria, was subjected to the “Anschluss” by the Third Reich in 1938. Moreover, Spain, although not an actual part of the “Axis Powers”, was a close allay to them. In other words, the heritage of the World War II is clearly manifest itself through the configuration of the countries in our Map of “War and Peace” in 2023.

In order to depict this more clearly, along the subgroup of “Defeatist” countries of former members and allays of “Axis Powers”, let us consider also the group “Western Coalition” countries of WWII. In GIA 2023 survey this group is presented by USA, UK and Canada⁽¹¹⁾.

Table 2.

“Yes”, “No”, “DK/NR” answers of the “Axis Powers” and
the “Western Coalition” of the WW II. According to the GIA 2023 results.

On the right part of Table 2, we present the group averages of “Yes”, “No”, “DK/NR” answers of “Western Coalition” countries to the question “Would you fight for you country?”. On the left part of the table corresponding answers of the “Axis Powers” (Germany, Italy, Japan) are presented. As in the Tab. 1 above, in the center part of the Tab. 2 we present the overall averages of “Yes”, “No” and “DK/NR” answers, calculated for all 45 countries of GIA 2023 survey, without any distinction between them. As we can see, the “Yes” answer of the “Axis Powers” (15%) is 2.5 times less than corresponding answer of the “Western Coalition” (36%), and also 36.4% less than the overall average “Yes” answer of the 2023 survey (51.7%). On the contrary, the “No” answer of the “Western Coalition” (40%) is almost 1.5 times less than the “No” answer of the “Axis Powers” (62%). It is 6.6% more than the overall average “No” answer (33.7%) of 2023 survey.

Thus, through the global picture of the “North–South” confrontation, the legacy of the political and geopolitical defeat of the “Axis” countries in World War II clearly appears on the “War and Peace” Map. It is expressed in the preservation of greater “belligerence” of the countries of the “Western Coalition”, compared to the “Axis countries”, see Tab. 2. Probably, it is a consequence of the long “cultural-historical transformation” that the societies of Germany, Japan and Italy have undergone since May 8, 1945.

Several other observations could be made based on the Map of “War and Peace”. For instance, there is a greater “decisiveness” to fight in the “New Europe” countries, compared with the European “continental core”. Or the greater “decisiveness” to fight of the US (41% “Yes”, 38% “No”, 20% “DK/NR”), positioned just on borderline between Quarters II and III, in comparison with the two other countries of the “Western Coalition”: Canada (34% “Yes”, 37% “No”, 29% “DK/NR” answers) and the United Kingdom (UK, 33% “Yes”, 50% “No”, 17% “DK/NR” answers). One can interpret that, as less “belligerent” mood of former Metropole (UK) compared to its former dominions. A similar picture is noticeable in the data for the RF and Ukraine (see in [1], and below, Tab. 5 and 6). The position of Sweden and South Korea in the lower half-plane of the Map is also noticeable. Of all the countries of the global “North”, they are characterized by the highest “Yes” answers (47% and 46%, respectively). Which can be explained by Sweden’s historical memory of confrontation with Russia, and by still unresolved conflict between the Southern and Northern Koreas. Location of Nigeria, the only African country⁽¹²⁾, as well as Hong Kong⁽¹³⁾, in “Pacifists” Quarter III is also worthy of a separate study.

The unusually large diameter of the RF and Japan “bubbles” also stands out in Chr. 1. “DK/NR” answers of these countries is unusually high (48% and 41%), which is almost 3 times higher than the overall average of the 2023 survey (15%). A great temptation is to interpret these numbers as a result of the Special Military Operation (SMO) conducted by RF in Ukraine, and as a consequence of the unresolved territorial dispute over the “Northern territories”

But what interests us most here, is the exceptional position of Armenia on the 2023 Map of “War and Peace” with the highest “Yes” and the lowest “No” and “DK/NR” answers in GIA 2023 survey. This result is in stark contrast with the situation “on the ground” and causes a certain cognitive dissonance. So, it is expedient to elaborate the situation here in more details.

5. THE PICTURE IN DYNAMICS

“Eternity?” said Frankie Lee / With a voice as cold as ice
“That’s right,” said Judas, “Eternity / Though you might call it ‘Paradise’”
“I don’t call it anything” / Said Frankie Lee with a smile
“All right,” said Judas Priest / “I’ll see you after a while”

Bob Dylan, 1967⁽¹⁴⁾

The Map of “War and Peace”, although graphical enough, reflects the state of affairs only at the end of 2023. In other words, it is static and does not reveal the changes in the mood of society regarding the will (or unwillingness) to fight for their country. Meanwhile, over the past decade, amid war and peace, very turbulent, if not tragic, events have occurred (and continue to occur) in our country, and in our entire region.

Indeed, two wars unleashed by Azerbaijan (and Turkey) in 2016 and 2020, a change of power elites in Armenia in 2018, a 9-month blockade of Artsakh, the exodus of Armenians from there, and then the dissolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) in 2023, pictures a very turbulent decade for our country. From greater regional perspective, the start of a special military operation (SMO) of the Russia in Ukraine started in February 2022, and its expansion into a full-scale war, the resumption of bloody clashes in Palestine, exodus of the Palestinian population from the Gaza Strip, should be added.

Therefore, it would be useful to see how the willingness to fight is changed say, over the past 10 years. The results of a similar survey conducted by GIA at the end of 2014 is just wat we need here. Especially, as far as we know, this GIA 2014 results have not been properly studied by our analytical community, neither then, nor now.

In September-December 2014, 62 398 people were surveyed in 63 countries of the world, including Armenia, as part of the GIA survey, by the national representative sample of about 1000 men and women. The margin of the error of the survey was +3 to -5% at the 95% level. The preliminary data were published on December 30, 2014. [7]. In May 2015, the final results were presented [8], which did not contain, however, initial data. They are given only in the report of this survey, published on March 18, 2015, in Pakistan [9].

The question, which is the subject of our article, was asked in 2014 in the version specified above, so we will not repeat the lexical and culturomical analysis of its form and style, already carried out in [1]. We note only that the survey of 2014 covered larger number of countries (63) than the 2023 survey (45). 39 countries, out of 63 of 2014 survey including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, India, the RF, Ukraine, etc., appear in both surveys. This list of 39 countries is referred bellow as the Comparable List. Besides, the 2014 survey included also 24 countries, which were not covered in 2023⁽¹⁵⁾. And vice versa, the 2023 survey includes 6 countries⁽¹⁶⁾, which were not considered in 2014.

Finally, let as note that 24 out of 63 countries of the 2014 survey belongs to the global “North”, as defined by modernized “Brandt Line”, and the remaining 39 belongs to the global “South”.

Let’s start with the ranking of the top-countries by answer “Yes” in the 2014, see Tab. 3. The top five countries” here looks like this: Fiji, Morocco, Pakistan, Vietnam and Bangladesh. As we can see, all of them belong to the “Global South”. Azerbaijan (85%) took the 6^th place in the full list of the 2014 survey. Armenia (72%) is on the 14^th position. In the list of top-14 countries Georgia (76%), India (75%) and Turkey (73%) are ahead of Armenia.

Table 3.

Top 14 countries by “Yes” answer of the GIA 2014 survey.

Before we proceed with the further analysis let us note, that the presence of Finland in this top-14 list (11^th with the 74% of “Yes” answer) is quite remarkable. This is the only country of the “Global North” in the top-14 list. And one of only three countries of the “Global North”, which are situated in the upper half-plan of the 2014 Map of “War and Peace”. Indeed, country-specific “Yes” answer of Finland (74%) is well exceeding the overall-average “Yes” of the 2014 survey (52.3%). The next such country of the “Global North” is Sweden, – 32^nd in the 2014 country “Yes” list. Country-specific “Yes” answer of Sweden (55%) is also exceeding the overall-average. The third one is Greece (54%).

It is necessary to remind that 10 years later, according to the results of the 2023 survey, in the upper half-plane of the 2023 “War and Peace” Map (Chr. 1), there is no longer a single country from the “Global North”. For example, Sweden (47% of “Yes” in 2023) is located in the lower half-plane of the map, in Quarter II of “Indecisive pacifists” (see Chr. 1). But with one important circumstance here. In 2014 Finland and Sweden kept their status as “neutral” countries. 10 years later they have already become NATO members⁽¹⁷⁾.

Table 4.

Results of GIA 2014 and 2023 surveys for the global “South” and “North”.

To finish with the global “South” and “North”, in Tab. 4 we summarized the results of GIA 2014 and 2023 surveys for the global “South” (left) and “North” (right). In the middle of the table, we show the overall-averages of the answers. The last row of the table (marked in red) shows the averages of the answers for the 2014-2023 decade. As we can see, in general, the decisiveness of the global “South” countries to fight (62%), averaged over the last 10 years, is almost twice as high as the decisiveness of the global “North” (32%). Moreover, the undecided respondents from the “North” (24%) is also twice as high as compared to the countries of “South” (10%). And the “pacifism” of the “North” (44%) is almost 1.5 time higher than the “pacifism” of the “South” (28%).

Now let us turn to the “current” regional armed conflicts, and to the confrontation between the two group of countries, with historical roots going back to the WWII. In Tab. 5 (left) we consider 4 pairs of countries which are involved in regional armed conflicts, indicating their “Yes” answers according to 2014 and 2023 surveys⁽¹⁸⁾. In the right side of the table, we consider two groups of countries of the “Western Coalition” and “Axis Powers”. For them in the last two rows of Tab. 5 group-average “Yes” answers (%), as well as the group-average for last decade presented (%, highlighted in red). As we can see, in the last 10 years, the “Yes” answers of the “Western Coalition” group (33.9%) is twice as much as the “Axis Powers” group answers (16%).

Table 5.

Willingness of counties to fight (“Yes” answers) in regional armed conflicts (left),
and in the historical confrontation (right). Based on GIA 2014 and 2023 results

Based on obtained results we will determine the “decisiveness” (%) as the willing to fight for their country over the past decade as average of “Yes” answers of 2014 and 2023 GIA surveys for the given country. In Tab. 6 the results for the 4 regional armed conflicts, namely – “NKR Conflict”; in the “Indo-Pakistani conflict” “Special military operation of RF in Ukraine” (SMO), and Israel-Palestine “Middle East” conflict are presented. Table presents the “decisiveness” of each of the pair of countries involved in the given regional armed conflict. As can be seen, “decisiveness” of Azerbaijan over the past decade was 87%, for Armenia – 84%, for Pakistan – 88%, for Israel – 66% (2014), and for Russia – 46%.

Table 6.

“Intensity” (%) of three regional conflicts.

Finally, we introduce the concept of “intensity” of the regional conflict (%) over the past decade as the average value of “decisiveness” (%) of involved pairs of countries. The results are shown in Tab. 6, where they are highlighted in red. As we can see, over past 10-year period, the “intensity” of the “NKR” conflict (85%) was the highest among all considered regional conflicts. It is significantly higher than the intensity of the global “North–South” confrontation 42% (average of the “South” 62% and the “North” 32% “Yes” answers, see Tab. 4), or the intensity of “Western Coalition” the “Axis Powers” confrontation (24.9%, see Tab. 5).

Chart 2. Comparison of answers (%) for Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to GIA 2014 and 2023 surveys.

We will conclude this chapter with the observation which concerned us most. In the Comparable list of 39 countries, that appear in both 2014 and 2023 GIA surveys, Azerbaijan with its “Yes” answer is the second, while Armenia is the 7^th. Chart 2 summarized “Yes”. “No” and “DK/NR” answers of 2014 and 2023 GIA surveys for Armenia and Azerbaijan. As we can see, in 2014 only 72% of respondents in Armenia answered “Yes”, 23% responded “No”, and 6% gave an undecided answer. While for Azerbaijan, the answers were 85% “Yes”, 1% gave “No” and 13% responded with “DK/NR” answers. In other words, 10 years ago, at the brink of bloody events in our region, the “decisiveness” of Azerbaijan to fight for their country exceeded Armenia by 1.2 times. And in terms of “pacifism” i.e., according to the level of “No” answers, Armenia surpassed Azerbaijan 23 times.

6. INSTEAD of CONCLUSION

“Take up the White Man’s burden / The savage wars of peace
Fill full the mouth of famine / And bid the sickness cease.
And when your goal is nearest / The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly / Bring all your hopes to nought”

R. Kipling, 1899⁽¹⁹⁾.

“Well, the moral of the story / The moral of this song
Is simply that one should never be / Where one does not belong
So when you see your neighbor carryin’ somethin’ / Help him with his load
And don’t go mistaking Paradise / For that home across the road”.
Bob Dylan, 1967.

“Struggle against neo-colonialism is of particular importance among our foreign policy objectives”.
I. Aliev, 04.04.2024⁽²⁰⁾.

The analysis of the answers to the “would you fight for your country” question of the GIA 2014 and 2023 surveys [1, 2], and especially the consideration of the “War and Peace” Map, provides with rich food for thoughts and generalizations. Especially, in the period from April 24 to May 9, when our study was actually conducted. More recently, each year this time period was perceived as a transition from the mournful date of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire to the “May Triple Victories”: the Battle of Sardarapat (1918), the Great Victory in WWII (1945) and the Liberation of Shushi (1992). This was the ontological basis of the “Armenian narrative”, our calendar of the victories and metronome of our feelings. But today, this period is marked by the “rebellion” of certain groups of Armenian society, hampered by deep crisis in the perception of reality [10], both historical and geopolitical.

A rational mind is in a hurry to see the unequivocal correspondence between the facts (or what it considers to be such) and the consequences arising from them. For example, in the question of how and to what extent the results of public opinion surveys determine the next course of history i.e., the dynamics of war and peace. This is not an idle question, but rather a complicate one, that does not tolerate simplifications. For example, it can be assumed that the high percentage of “Yes” answers for Sweden and, especially, for Finland in the 2014 GIA survey, served as a basis for the implementation of a certain policy, and as a result after 10 years they ended up in NATO (of course, this was triggered by the SMO in Ukraine).

As for our defeats of 2020–2023, we can interpret them as a result of a lower, decisiveness of the Armenian society to fight for their country, compared to Azerbaijan’s (Chr. 2)⁽²¹⁾. It is possible to see them as a result of breaking of the “social contract”, made in the late 1990s between Armenian society and the power, which become apparent after the “Four-day war” (April 2016) and led to the seizure of the Regiment of the Patrol Security Service in Yerevan in the summer of the same year. It is also possible to reduce them to the fundamental drawback in the development of Armenian Critical Infrastructure, in comparison with Azerbaijan, during the last 30 years ([12], Chapter 3). Finally, it is possible to consider them as a result of the loss of internal political stability and governance after the “velvet, non-violent revolution” of spring 2018. All these interpretations have the right to exist, but all of them are far from being the full picture.

The aim of our research is not providing an exhaustive explanation of our defeats in the recent years. It is more modest, and consists in, firstly, introducing several data that are still little known or little studied in our country into discussions, which we think are inevitable and necessary. And secondly, to emphasize the practical significance of the confrontation between global “North” and “South” for the dynamics of war and peace.

In this sense, it is important to pay attention to the inevitable actualization of the issue of neocolonialism in the confrontation of global “South” and “North”, which constituting a significant part of the modern geopolitical narrative today. For us, these are not just academic issues, but elements of applied policy and geopolitics of the region. This issue touches us in two ways.

Firstly, from the point of view of Azerbaijan’s activities within the framework of the “Non-Aligned Movement” (NAM), on the one hand. And in comparison with the participation and activity of Armenia in the International Organization of French-speaking countries (OIF)⁽²²⁾, on the other. This is not the place to go deep into the history of this question, so we will only note that before 2012 both Armenia and Azerbaijan were observer-states of the NAM⁽²³⁾. But since October 2012, cooperation with the IOF began to be considered by the then Armenian leadership as a kind of counterbalance to Azerbaijan’s growing cooperation with the NAM.

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s activity in the NAM grew up, being simultaneously consistent in achieving the main goal (victory in NKR), and flexible in balancing between Islamic countries and Israel. It gained momentum by the use neo-colonial geopolitical narrative, combined with elements of the “oil business”. From another side, until recently ineffective geopolitical cooperation of Armenia with IOF resembles Armenia’s fruitless cooperation with BSEC⁽²⁴⁾ and TRACECA⁽²⁵⁾ during the past almost 3 decades. As a result, since 2013, the imbalance between the Azerbaijan and NAM, and Armenia and IOF has increased.

This imbalance became vivid in 2019, when Azerbaijan was elected as the country-chair of the NAM for the 2019-2024 time period, and when on October 25-26, 2019, Baku hosted the 18^th Conference of Heads of State and Government of NAM, devoted to “observing the Bandung Principles to ensure a coordinated and adequate response to the challenges of the modern world” (i.e. “neocolonialism”). Moreover, in July 2023, the “Initiative group to support the struggle against colonialism and neocolonialism”, otherwise called “Baku Initiative Group” (BIG) was created in Baku [13].

The purpose of BIG activities was quite clearly stated by president I. Aliyev in his welcoming speech to the participants of the international conference “Neocolonialism: Violation of Human Rights and Injustice”, which was opened on October 20, 2023, in Baku: “Azerbaijan is deeply concerned with the ongoing colonialism and its reemerging manifestations in the XXI century. Although 70 years have passed since the Bandung Conference, some countries continue to pursue colonialism. Among those, the foremost one is France. Overall, most of the bloody crimes of the colonialism history of mankind were committed by none other than France”. Attached to the conference materials was a map “Collapse of the French Colonial Empire”, which we reproduce below (Map 2)⁽²⁶⁾.

April 17, 2024, France recalled its ambassador from Baku. The next day, April 18, 2024, a conference was held in the Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan on the topic “New Caledonia: history, modern challenges and the expected future” [14]. During the visit to Baku, MP N. Omayra, head of Committee on Infrastructure of the “New Caledonia Congress”, signed a memorandum of cooperation with Azerbaijan. “This includes political support. At the same time, we will be able to develop our cooperation in such areas as economy, culture, ecology. A new page is opening for us, today we are laying the foundation of a new history between two peoples”, said N. Omayra [14].

Map 2. “Collapse of the French Colonial Empire”. Source: [13].

A month later, on May 16, 2024, riots began in New Caledonia, leading to casualties, during which Azerbaijani flags were seen in the hands of the instigators. According to the statement of the head of the French Ministry of Internal Affairs, J. Darmanin, “The Azerbaijani trace in the organization of these riots is not a fantasy. I regret that some separatists made a deal with Azerbaijan”⁽²⁷⁾. France was forced to send 600 gendarmes to New Caledonia to control transportation infrastructure and maintain order during a declared state of emergency. According to the same source, “as a French intelligence official put it, Moscow and Baku promoted the view among the inhabitants of the Pacific archipelago that “France is a colonialist state”.

In turn, the official representative of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry A. Hajizade responded that “the French Interior Minister should focus on his country’s failed policy towards the overseas territories, which led to such protests”. And in the official protest of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry it was noted that “unlike in France, where there are widespread facts of gross violations of human rights, killings of protesters during riots, manifestations of Islamophobia and cases of attacks on Muslims, as well as anti-Semitism, fundamental rights and freedoms are fully ensured in Azerbaijan”⁽²⁸⁾. On May 16, 2024, BIG Executive Director A. Abbasov stated: “Today we observe that the French government seeks to maintain its neo-colonial policy in the colonized regions”.

Now, after 3 years from the signing of the Tripartite statement of November 9, 2020, and after the biblical exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023, we must note to ourselves that Azerbaijan’s foreign policy and its activities within the NAM framework have entered the global scene and embedded in the confrontation between the global “South” and “North” on ground of the “the struggle against neocolonialism”. It would be natural to assume that relations between Paris and Baku have worsened in the last few years due to France’s position on the Karabakh issue and the military-technical and military-political cooperation between Armenia and France that emerged after November 9, 2020. Actually, this is exactly how these events are interpreted in a number of analytical, mainly Armenian- and Russian-language studies.

Map 3. “Nine Coups in Four Years”. The zone of coups in Sahel (Africa) 2019–2023.
Source: Le Monde, Aug 2, 2023.

It seems that such an interpretation, which, however, has its own grounds, is still one-sided. It would be a simplification, or even a mistake, to follow it. A more adequate point of view seems to be one that combines this behavior of Azerbaijan with the realities of the global confrontation between Russia and the West that emerged after the start of SMO in Ukraine. More precisely, with a series of coups in the Sahel zone in Africa, which occurred from April 2019 to July 2023 in the former territories of French colonial possessions in Africa (see Map 3). In most of them, the activities of the private military company (PMC) “Wagner”⁽²⁹⁾ were clearly traced. Moreover, the Le Monde map does not indicate the 10th coup d’état in the Sahel zone; we mean the coup d’état in Gabon⁽³⁰⁾, which took place at the end of August 2023.

In other words, holding of the Russia-Africa summit⁽³¹⁾ in St. Petersburg on July 27-28, 2023, coup in Niger on July 27, 2023, establishment of the BIG in Baku in July, 2023, may, and should, be considered not as a simple coincidence in time, but as a kind of synchronization, voluntary or not (for the purposes of our study this does not have much significance so far), of the actions of RF and Azerbaijan in the field of the struggle against France and “anti-colonialism”.
From this point of view, the riots in New Caledonia in May 2024 should be perceived as an expansion of the “Sahel zone coups” from Africa to the Pacific Ocean. But it would be the same simplification, and even worse, a mistake, to consider that the anti-French policy of the RF (and Azerbaijan) is limited by France’s position regarding the SMO in Ukraine (and France-Armenia military cooperation started recently). Especially under the “strategic fainting” of the USA on the eve of presidential elections. In our opinion, the very special role of France (and China) goes back to their special position upon to the “legacy” of the Soviet atomic weapons in the former republics, the mechanism of the “Budapest Memorandums”, and to the issue of the borders and sovereignty of states, formed after the collapse of the USSR. And even earlier, to France’s withdrawal from the NATO Nuclear Planning Group in 1966⁽³²⁾.

Let’s finish our somewhat protracted conclusion with the following episode. On April 4, 2024, in a conversation with the President of the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) D. Sassou Nguesso, the President of Azerbaijan stated: “Struggle against neo-colonialism is of particular importance among our foreign policy objectives”. Further I. Aliev stressed, “some time ago, the BIG was established in Azerbaijan. The main goal of this institution is to fight new manifestations of colonialism, support the peoples suffering from colonialism today, and ensure that those peoples achieve freedom on legal grounds”⁽³³⁾.

On the morning, Sunday, May 19, 2024, a coup attempted took place in the D.R. Congo (Kinshasa), which was soon suppressed by the military. The events took place on the right bank of the Congo River, in the capital Kinshasa. According to the official reports, “a number of foreigners and Congolese took part in the coup attempt”. Later that day, US Ambassador to D. R. Congo L. Tamlin wrote in his blog, “I am shocked by the events of this morning and very concerned about reports of American citizens allegedly involved”⁽³⁴⁾.

It was reported that several people were wounded in Brazzaville, the capital of the Republic of Congo, when a shell from Kinshasa fell directly into the area of the capital of the Republic of Congo, Brazzaville (located opposite Kinshasa, across the Congo River). Moreover, videos on social networks show men in military uniform in the Palais des Nations in Kinshasa waving flags of Zaire (the name of D.R. Congo until 1997)⁽³⁵⁾.

We do not know whether Azerbaijan’s flags were waved in Brazzaville or Kinshasa on May 19, 2024, along with the flags of Zaire, but one thing is certain⁽³⁶⁾: Azerbaijan’s activity in NAM poses a number of challenges to Armenia’s foreign policy, and this new situation must be fully comprehended by our analytical community. Especially in light of confrontation between the global “North” and “South” regions, and within the usage of the “struggle against neocolonialism” narrative by a number of countries in order to reach their own geopolitical goals.

1. A. Marjanyan, Would you fight for your country? “ARVAK” Analytical Center, (22.05.2024), https://arvak.am/en/would-you-fight-for-your-country/
2. A. Marjanyan, Scientific-Information Policy and Hybrid Wars. “21-й ВЕК”, № 4 (45), 2017г. http://www.intelros.ru/pdf/21vek/201704/2.pdf
3. A. Marjanyan, Primate cities. (in Arm.), “Orbeli” Center, 30 April, 2020. https://orbeli.am/hy/post/439/2020-04-30/Առաջնային+քաղաքներ
4. A. Marjanyan, UNIVERSE OF WORDS։ Google N-grams Tool and the frequency of usage of words. (in Arm.), “21^st CENTURY”, #4 (74), 2017. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/vselennaya-slov-google-n-grams-i-chastota-ispolzovaniya-slov.pdf
5. Piantadosi S․, Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. 2014, October; Psychon Bull Rev. 21(5), pp. 1112–1130. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176592/
6. A. Marjanyan, Global regions, generation waves and historical policy. (in Arm.) “21-st Century”, #3 (79), 2018. https://artsakhlib.am/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Արա-Մարջանյան-Գլոբալ-տարածաշրջաններ-սերնդային-ալիքներ-և-պատմական-քաղաքականություն.pdf
7. WIN/Gallup International’s Annual Global End of Year Survey Shows That Happiness is on the Rise. 30 December 2014. https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33145/win-gallup-internationals-annual-global-end-of-year-survey-shows-that-happiness-is-on-the-rise/
8. WIN/Gallup International’s Global Survey Shows Three in Five Willing to Fight for Their Country. 07 May 2015. https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/33483/win-gallup-internationals-global-survey-shows-three-in-five-willing-to-fight-for-their-country/
9. 2014 EoY Survey. WIN/Gallup Internationals Global Survey Shows Three in Five Willing to Fight for Their Country. PRESS RELEASE, 18 March 2015. https://gallup.com.pk/bboldsite/Polls/180315.pdf
10. Amazing loss of adequacy in the perception of reality. 13.01.2017. Caucasian Geopolitical Club, 2017. http://www.rni.am/rus/articles/security/detail.php?ELEMENTID=15362
11. Storm in the Caucasus. by R. N. Pukhov. Center for analysis of strategies and technologies. M.: 2021. — p.128. (in Rus.) cast.ru/upload/iblock/1dc/1dc6cf4ce2c1d6808d23beeceaf c3234.pdf
12. Critical infrastructure and national security. (in Arm.), SEF “Noravank”, Yerevan, 2018. http://www.noravank.am/arm/books/details.php?ELEMENTID=17890
13. Baku Initiative Group against the last neo-colonial empire. 21.10.2023. https://kavkazplus.com/news.php?id=41509.
14. A scientific conference on the topic “New Caledonia: history, modern challenges and expected future” was held at the Milli Majlis, 18.04.2024. https://special.azertag.az/en/xeber/2972375

(1) UNDP National expert (power sector), EU National expert (transport), EAEC Expert Club fellow, Dr. Tec. Sci., Senior Researcher, Leading analyst.

(2) The Russian original of the article was submitted to the Editorial Office on 20.05.2024.

(3) As in [1], we sum “No Response” cases to the “Don’t know” answers in one category “DK/NR”.

(4) «I’m begging you», from the book «Man in palm», 1957.

(5) Besides the obvious reasons, it is also a tribute to the studies on the Zipf’s law (G.K. Zipf, [4]) and to the analysis of the frequency distribution of word usage in the famous novel “War and Peace” by L. N. Tolstoy, [5].

(6) “Mandalay”, from the collection “Barrack-Room Ballads, and Other Verses”․

(7) Named after W. Brandt, former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (1969–74) and Nobel Peace Prize winner (1971)․

(8) We have pointed out once [6], and it is no sin to repeat it again, that probably the first meaningful definition of global regions, not counting Kipling’s famous “East” and “West”, belongs to A. Asimov. This was done in 1950, in the short story “The Evitable Conflict”, wrapping up the famous “I, Robot” collection. In this story Asimov predicted: the inevitable transformation of the USSR (the collapse occurred in 1991), the inevitable unification of European countries into a separate region (happened in 1993), the inevitable economic and political separation of the United Kingdom from Europe (“Brexit” occurred in 2016-17), the inevitable rise of China (China’s GDP in purchasing power parity surpassed the United States in 2019) and much more, including the inevitable transformation of the human rights movement. It is worth to note, that although the “I, Robot” collection was first published in Russian back in 1963, neither there, nor in the numerous subsequent editions this particular story was accurately omitted by censorship every time and in every edition. For the first time this short story was published in Russian only in 1992, after the collapse of the USSR. And even then, under misleading title of “Solvable Contradiction” («Разрешимое противоречие»).

(9) Here and bellow we correct some mistakes of official GIA publications on 2023 poll made during calculations of overall and group averages (see the corresponding reafferences in [1]).

(10) Here we are not going to discuss the position of the countries relative to the main diagonal (MD) of the Map, and the meaning of their distances from it. Let us only note, that the MD of Chr. 1 defines the boundary of equilibrium between the “decisiveness” and “pacifism” of the countries.

(11) Unfortunately, Australia, New Zealand and France are not covered by GIA 2023 survey.

(12) I cannot refrain from noting that the “coordinator” of the global “South” in Asimov’s mentioned 1950 short story was a Nigerian, and the capital of the “South” region was in Nigeria.

(13) China was not covered by the GIA 2023 survey.

(14) “The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest”, album “John Wesley Harding”, 1967.

(15) Among them: Turkey, Greece, Israel, Palestine territory, China, France, Czechia, etc.

(16) Albania, Iran, Iraq, Moldavia, Saudi Arabia, Syria.

(17) Finland since April 4, 2023, Sweden since March 7, 2024.

(18) Unfortunately, Israel and the Palestine were not included in the Survey-2023, but for the sake of completeness we have included this pair in the table, Table 5 shows only 2014 data for them.

(19) “The White Man’s Burden,” published in “The Times” (London), February 4, 1899.

(20) azertag.az/ru/xeber/ (download date: 24.04.2024).

(21) As the editor of the [11], dedicated to the analysis of the 44-day war of 2020, put it: “Armenians just did not come to the war”.

(22) L’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). By 2020 it unites 54 members, 7 associated members, representing states and governments, as well as 27 observer-members. Armenia became observer in 2003 and associated member in 2008. In October 2012, Armenia became the 54th country, a full member of OIF.

(23) Non-Aligned Movement. There are 120 countries, including 1 European country (Belarus, which is also a member of the CSTO), 37 Asian countries, 53 African countries, 26 American countries and 3 Oceanic countries. https://web.archive.org/web/20160209210107/ http://www.nam.gov.za/background/background.htm#4.1

(24) Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC). Although Armenia has been a BSEC member since 1999, it’s activity there can be considered as a complete failure.

(25) “Transport Corridor Europe Caucasus Asia”. Armenia joined it in 1993, but the zero results.

(26) This conference was attended by representatives of Algeria, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Ethiopia, as well as Guadeloupe, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Guiana and French Polynesia, “i.e. the countries that have historically suffered from French colonialism and are now suffering from French neo-colonialism. Actually, they are colonies, but formally French overseas territories”. [12].

(27) https://www.politico.eu/article/france-accuse-azerbaijan-fomenting-deadly-riot-overseas-territory-new-caledonia/

(28) azertag.az/ru/xeber/

(29) On June 23-24, 2023, the PMC “Wagner” headed by Y. Prigozhin attempted a military coup. On August 23, 2023, Y. Prigozhin, D. Utkin (“Wagner”), Y. Makaryan (“Makar”) and others died in the airplane crash. After Prigozhin’s death the PMC “Wagner” was dissolved, its personnel were partly attached to the RF Ministry of Defense.

(30) https://tass.ru/voennyy-perevorot-v-gabone

(31) 2^nd “Russia–Africa” Summit and Economic and Humanitarian Forum.

(32) See the series of our articles on tactical nuclear weapons in our region, on the pages of ARVAK analytical center.

(33) аzertag.az/ru/xeber/. The fact that President Sassou Nguesso’s son is a head of the state oil company of Congo (Brazzaville), I think, gave special warmth to this conversation.

(34) https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/democratic-republic-congo-army-says-it-stopped-attempted-coup-2024-05-19/

(35) https://www.interfax.ru/world/961251

(36) In the news field, the coup attempt in the Congo was overshadowed by the news of tragic deaths of Iranian President E. Raisi, Iranian Foreign Minister H. Amir-Abdollahian and other officials in a helicopter crash near the Nakhijevan border. They were returning after a meeting with President I. Aliyev at the official opening ceremony of launching the “Khoda Afarin” dam and hydropower plant, as well as the “Kiz-Kalasi” hydropower and irrigational complex on the Arax River.