The Roundtable: When the World Looks Away
Editor's Note: Welcome to our monthly roundtable discussion. Each month, our five student editors will come together to debate a major issue shaping our world. This transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Minwoo Jung: This month, a conflict that had been "frozen" for thirty years came to a sudden and brutal end. Azerbaijan launched a lightning military offensive and, in just 24 hours, forced the surrender of the Armenian-backed government of Nagorno-Karabakh. We're now witnessing a mass exodus of virtually the entire ethnic Armenian population from the region. It's a decisive end to a long and tragic story, and it happened with almost no intervention from the outside world. I wanted to start by asking: what does this tell us about the state of our world order?
Anthony Min: It tells us that geopolitical vacuums are always filled. For decades, the guarantor of the status quo in that region, however fragile, was Russia. But Russia is completely bogged down and distracted by its disastrous war in Ukraine. Its "peacekeepers" in Karabakh were a hollow force. Azerbaijan, backed by a much more assertive Turkey, saw a window of opportunity created by Russian weakness, and they took it. It was a cold, calculated, and ruthlessly effective application of leverage.
Yehee Jung: It's hard to hear it described in such transactional terms, Anthony. What we're seeing is a massive humanitarian crisis and what many are calling an act of ethnic cleansing. A community of 120,000 people is being forcibly displaced from their ancestral homeland. From a public health and human rights perspective, it's a catastrophic failure of the international community's "responsibility to protect." It seems that principle only applies when it aligns with the interests of a major power.
Minwoo Jung: I agree with the outcome, Yehee, but I think it confirms the realist view of international relations. The "responsibility to protect" has always been a selective ideal, not a binding law. In this case, neither the US nor the EU had significant strategic interests at stake to risk a confrontation, and the regional hegemon, Russia, was impotent. Azerbaijan had the military advantage, the political will, and the backing of a strong regional ally. In the absence of a global policeman, might often does make right. This is a textbook example.
Saerom Kim: But that's so bleak. It feels like we're just accepting a world where powerful countries can do whatever they want to smaller groups. I've been reading the personal stories of the refugees, and they are heartbreaking. Families who have lived on that land for generations, now forced to flee with nothing but what they can carry. It’s a human story that gets lost when we only talk about geopolitics and power vacuums. It makes the grand statements from the UN and other bodies feel completely empty.
Yonghyuk Choi: It reminds me of the business side of sports, in a way. You see these massive entities, like sovereign wealth funds or powerful leagues, making decisions that completely disregard the history and loyalty of a smaller community—like a team being relocated from its lifelong home. The people in charge make a strategic decision based on their interests, and the people on the ground are left to deal with the emotional and cultural wreckage. It's a story about the asymmetry of power.
Minwoo Jung: That's a great parallel, Yonghyuk. And it raises the question of what happens next. Armenia, having lost its protectorate and its faith in Russia as an ally, is now in a profound political crisis. Does it pivot to the West? Does it seek a new security arrangement? This could fundamentally re-order the politics of the South Caucasus.
Anthony Min: The economic side is also critical. Azerbaijan now has full control of the region, which opens up new transport and energy corridors that could bypass both Russia and Iran. This has significant economic implications for Europe's energy security. The end of this conflict, as tragic as it is for the people involved, creates new economic opportunities that other nations will be quick to exploit.
Final Thoughts
Yonghyuk Choi: This feels like a story where the final whistle has blown, but the game was so unequal it was hard to watch.
Anthony Min: A clear demonstration that in geopolitics, a power vacuum is the most dangerous force of all.
Saerom Kim: We can't let the language of "geopolitics" erase the human tragedy of a people losing their home.
Yehee Jung: This is a catastrophic failure of international law and the principle of the responsibility to protect.
Minwoo Jung: It was a brutal but predictable outcome in a world where major powers are too distracted to intervene in conflicts that don't directly threaten their core interests.
What do you think? Is the outcome in Nagorno-Karabakh a sign of a new, more ruthless era in international relations? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
