Enclave on edge: Armenia and Azerbaijan

Hi, this is Christy from Back to the Bar. You've probably heard about GLP1 weight loss medications and the side effects that can come with jumping in too fast. That's why I love Noom. Makes getting started easy. Their microdose GLP1 program begins with a smaller dose and gradually scales up based on how your body reacts. The Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m.com Noom micro changes big results average weight loss 8 pounds in first month. Meds and personalization based on clinical need and not available to all individuals. Medications are not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. Pricing based on first month only.

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to.

The big man up north.

And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile' unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence on Economist Radio. Hi, I'm your host Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. The seismic changes that COVID 19 has brought to the healthcare industry have led to many worse outcomes, quite aside from the virus itself. Yet the pandemic has brought one silver lining. It's shown a better way to carry out early stage abortions. And for for all the dangerous fauna of Australia, the funnel web spider is one of the most fearsome. Its bite is lethal, but from an evolutionary standpoint, it shouldn't be. We look at new research that may at last explain this unhappy accident of evolution. But first, Armenia and Azerbaijan rejected international calls for a ceasefire yesterday after deadly clouds clashes broke out on Sunday, pushing the two countries to the brink of war. Both have declared martial law and total military mobilization. At least 100 people have been killed in the fighting which has involved artillery strikes and air power. The two former Soviet republics are locked in a decades old conflict over the disputed province of Nagorno Karabakh. This marks the second time in less than three months that the countries have come to blows. But this time they're edging closer to all out war, one which could ensnare both Turkey and Russia.

We haven't seen detailed death tolls from the Azerbaijani side, but the overall death toll now seems to be well north of 100.

Piotr Zelebski is our Turkey correspondent.

That would make the fighting in Nagorno Karabakh the heaviest since 2016, when at least 200 people were killed, and on pace to be the worst since 1994. The end of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

And what is that fight about?

It is about a region known as Nagorno Karabakh, a disputed province legally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but controlled by Armenian forces. To go back in history, Nagorno Karabakh had been a part of the Kingdom of Armenia over 2000 years ago and has been ruled since by a succession of empires. But under the Soviets, Nagorno Karabakh was a part of Azerbaijan. And as the USSR crumbled, clashes erupted between the Armenian majority of the region, which sought union with Armenia or independence, and the Azerbaijani minority. And these devolved into the brutal war in which about 30,000 people were killed and about a million displaced. And this included episodes of ethnic cleansing and several atrocities. The war ended with a ceasefire in 1994, and as I mentioned, Armenian forces have held on to Nagorno Karabakh itself and to seven districts surrounding the region.

So it's been, despite the ceasefire, still disputed since then.

Correct. Not only has it been disputed, there have been regular skirmishes. The one in 2016. And as recently as this year, in July, there were 16 people who were killed in areas north of Nagorno Karabakh. Thousands of Azerbaijanis responded to this, also to the death of a renowned Azerbaijani general, by taking to the streets and demanding that their government retake all of Nagorno Karabakh.

So why is it that the conflict this time seems to be escalating so quickly?

Analysts see the signs of a much broader military offensive by Azerbaijan and a return to a much broader conflict than what we saw in previous years. Some of them told me they saw this as a much better prepared campaign with more troops and fighting on all parts of the line of contact or the front line. And what we're seeing is in addition to heavy weaponry, infantry, helicopters and masses of drones on both sides, there's the threat that fighting could spill over into civilian areas and also into areas where pipelines deliver gas and oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey through Georgia.

So it's clear on the ground then, that this is a much more serious conflict. But, I mean, what set it off?

There's a belief on both sides that there is no political solution. The new Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, in a speech last year, called for the reunification of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia. The Azerbaijani side feels that the only way it can recover at least parts of Nagorno Karabakh or the outlying provinces is through force, perhaps because of COVID 19. There has been next to no international mediation of the conflict since this spring, and that is said to have led to the clashes in July. And the failure to mediate in the aftermath of July may have precipitated what we're seeing today. People in the region say that to some extent, they saw this coming for miles and the international community failed to prevent it.

And what is the international community's response now that it's escalated?

The UN Security Council has called on the two sides to put an end to the fighting. The European Union, the United States and Russia have also called for a ceasefire. Unlike other international actors, Turkey has urged Azerbaijan to push forward. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president, said on September 28 that peace would only come to the region once Armenia withdrew from Nagorno Karabakh. His spokesperson added the next day that Turkey was fully ready to help Azerbaijan recover the enclave. Reports indicate that Mr. Erdogan's government has sent Syrian mercenaries to help Azerbaijan. It is also providing drones to the Azerbaijani army. And Armenia accused Turkey of shooting down one of its warplanes, which is a charge that Turkish officials have denied.

And you mentioned Russia calling for a ceasefire. How is Russia involved?

Escalation on the part of Azerbaijan or further Turkish involvement could also drag in Russia, which sells arms to Azerbaijan, but also has a mutual defense pact with Armenia. So, in theory, because Nagorno Karabakh is not legally part of Armenia, Russia is not under any commitment to. To defend Armenia in case of an attack on Nagorno Karabakh. And so far, in fact, Russia has only gone so far as to ask Turkey to back its calls for a ceasefire. But if Armenia does come under attack by Azerbaijan or by Turkey, it seems Russia will have no choice but to defend Armenia.

And do you think that's the way things are heading? I mean, is there a way to calm the tensions here?

So far, calls for a ceasefire have fallen on deaf ears. It may be that Azerbaijan will succumb to Russian pressure and that both sides will lay down arms. It may be that Azerbaijan will simply settle for partial gains, especially in the seven districts near Nagorno Karabakh, and declare victory, which would placate public opinion at home. But this may yet get out of control. And as for the outside powers, Turkey and Russia are already tangled up in two proxy wars in Libya and in Syria. They now run the danger of fighting a third one over Nagorno Karabakh.

Piotr, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for yours.

For more analysis like this from our international network of correspondence, subscribe to the Economist to find the best introductory offer wherever you are, just go to economist.com intelligenceoffer.

Hi, this is Christy from Back to the Bar. You've probably heard about GLP1 weight loss medications and the side effects that can come with jumping in too fast. That's why I love Noom. Makes getting started easy. Their microdose GLP1 program begins with a smaller dose and gradually scales up based on how your body reacts. The Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m.com Noom micro changes big results average weight loss 8 pounds in first month meds and personalization based on clinical need and not available to all individuals. Medications are not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. Pricing based on first month only.

For many women, getting access to reproductive health services during the pandemic has been a nightmare. Fertility treatments have paused, sexual health clinics have closed, and giving birth has come with its own set of challenges. It's also presented problems for those wanting abortions. In some parts of the world, rules have been changed to try and overcome these difficulties.

So abortion regulations in England and Wales have changed significantly this year because they've been changed to allow women to have a medical abortion at home, which 23,000 women did between April and June.

Amy Hawkins is a journalist for the Economist.

This is only possible because of rules change due to the COVID 19 lockdown. Normally, the first of the two medications required for a medical abortion must be taken at a hospital or a clinic after an ultrasound and an in person consultation. Now women's homes also count basically as a clinic up to 10 weeks of gestation, and this was introduced so women can actually have their medications posted to them at home rather than going to the clinic to pick them up.

So the abortion happens at home rather than at a hospital or a clinic.

So I spoke to a woman called Sylvie, that's not her real name, who was one of those 23,000 women who had an abortion at home this year. And in her case, she found out that she was pregnant in late April and in early May, decided pretty quickly that she didn't want to continue with the pregnancy. You know, I quickly was the sole breadwinner due to the pandemic, which was a large factor in my decision, and also the. Still the primary caregiver for another child, who is, of course, my priority. Once she'd made that choice, she had a few phone appointments with doctors who talked her through the process. And then later that week, she took the pill that miscarried at home. After I sort of had the consultation, I think the pack arrived within four days. So the entire process was no more than about a week long. Having it done at home meant it was done in privacy, it was done quickly. I was comfortable, I felt safe. I'm not saying it was a nice thing to do, but it couldn't have gone sort of any better.

And was it just England and Wales that changed these, these rules?

No. So Ireland introduced similar rules to Britain and France, extended the limit for at home abortions from the seventh to the ninth week of pregnancy, but they said the pills must still be collected from a doctor or a pharmacy. So you do have to leave the house. In America, a federal judge lifted regulations that required women to collect abortion pills from a surgery clinic or hospital because the judge ruled that the obligation to go to a clinic was a substantial obstacle in the path of women during a pandemic.

And are there any safety issues around these kinds of changes?

There's no evidence that having an abortion at home is any more dangerous than taking the pills at a clinic. For early stage abortions, the WHO says that early term abortions can be safely carried out outside of a clinic in the first trimester. And in some countries, the actual termination already happened at home. So to have a medical abortion, you have to take two drugs, which are taken a couple of days apart. In England and Wales before COVID the first drug has to be administered by a doctor and the second drug was taken at home, and the pregnancy would end four to six hours after the second one was administered in most cases.

And taking a broader look, how has changing these restrictions changed the overall number of abortions?

So in England and Wales, in the first half of this year, there were about 110,000 abortions, and 50% of those abortions were performed before seven weeks. That's compared to 40% in the same period. The year before. The earlier a termination is, the safer it is. So this is a good thing that abortions are happening earlier. In terms of the overall number, England and Wales have seen a 4% rise in the number of terminations in the first half of this year. So that could be due to people's economic concerns or stress relationships and lockdowns, or less access to contraception. So it doesn't necessarily mean that having at home abortions leads to more abortions.

So it's really just a matter of letting people do what they would have done in the absence of the pandemic.

So one way to compare this is we can also look at countries that didn't change their rules. So Women on Web is a Canadian charity that provides pills to women in countries where abortions are illegal. And during the pandemic inquiries in Italy and Portugal shot up by 70% and 140%, respectively. And they're both countries that didn't introduce any Covid measures to allow women to have abortions at home. In Britain, after women were allowed to order their pills over the phone, requests to Women on the Web fell to negligible levels.

And what about in America, where this is such a charged debate?

So in America, medical abortions were rarer to start off with. In most European countries, around 2/3 of abortions are medical abortions rather than surgical. In the US only 40% are. And there are still some barriers to kind of abortion by post, because the federal judge's ruling doesn't mean much in the 15 states that require a doctor's presence when a woman collects abortion medication. And Aid Access, which is a charity that posts drugs to women when no one else will, the FDA has asked them to stop. But for example, in Texas, after all abortions were cancelled for several weeks, demand to aid access nearly doubled.

And so it's still early days yet. But do you get the sense that these kinds of changes to restrictions will stick after the pandemic?

So in America, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the federal judge's ruling. And in September, 20 Republican senators wrote a letter to the FDA urging it to take one of the drugs required for an abortion off the market because it was, quote, unquote, dangerous. But in Britain, I think it is more likely because the government has launched a public consultation on the matter. The British Medical association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have both called for the changes to be made permanent. Because all this is not about giving women any new rights. It's about allowing them to exercise rights safely and more efficiently.

Amy, thank you very much for joining us.

Thanks for having me on.

You don't have to go deep into the bush of Australia to find funnel web spiders. They're found in suburbia, just as on the forest floor. But keep your distance. Their powerful fangs can cut right through your shoes. Then you're in trouble. Left untreated, the venom can kill within hours. Australia has no shortage of animals that pose a threat to humans. But why the funnel web should be so good at killing them has always remained something of an enigma to biologists.

While they are truly lethal to people, dogs, cats, and other mammals are not slain by them very often. They don't like them very much. And the venom hurts, but it doesn't kill them. And so researchers for years have struggled with trying to understand why they're so dangerous.

But Matt Kaplan is our science correspondent.

This led Dr. Brian Fry at the University of Queensland to question what it was about the delta hexatoxins, which are the molecules in the venom that are particularly lethal to people. And he wanted to look at their evolution and figure out, when did these things start becoming such a problem? And that's where the puzzle really started to come together.

Why? What did he find?

Dr. Fry figured that the best way to try to unpick this puzzle was to look at the evolutionary history of Delta hexato in these spiders. And that analysis revealed that this very ancient group of spiders appeared just over 200 million years ago under the feet of the dinosaurs. And these spiders were hunting insects, so they needed those Delta hexatoxins to be able to nab those bugs. But what's really interesting is the venom evolves very rapidly from 200 to 150 million years ago, and then stops evolving much at all, which suggests that it was still serving a purpose. But there wasn't any more of this evolution and escalation, this arms race. Something happened. And that thing that happened, Dr. Fry suspects, is the evolution of mammals. And so he speculates that the venom shifted at that time from being used exclusively to hunt bugs to being used to keep mammals off the spider's back.

And so before it stopped, how did that evolutionary arms race play out?

So the thing is, when an animal is hunting other animals with venom, then there is a powerful pressure for those animals to develop resistance to the spider's venom. If even one individual develops some resistance, because that individual will survive and breed lots, that resistance will spread through the population quickly. And then the spider is now under pressure to develop A more potent venom of its own. It's an evolutionary arms race. We don't see that with defensive venoms when an animal is using venom to protect itself. So, for example, if another animal is coming up to harass the spider, it's helpful for the venom to not kill that animal. Especially if that animal that's harassing the spider raises its young and teaches. Because then if it survives the bite and goes, ah, right, those spiders stay away from them, the young will learn that too, and never even harass the spiders in the first place.

So everything was progressing as you'd expect based on evolutionary theory until the mammals arrive. But that' still doesn't get us to the answer of why the current toxin is still so deadly to humans.

Yeah. So the reason why the venom hurts mammals in general so much is the concept that the venom, around 150 million years ago, started being used primarily by wandering males that were in search of females to keep the mammals that were on the landscape from bothering them. And therefore it was being used defensively. Mammals didn't have much of a reason to develop resistance to the bite because it wasn't killing any of them at the time. And then 65,000 years ago, suddenly people arrive in Australia and the funnel web spiders meet primates for the first time. So there was no co evolution. And 65,000 years is not very long for the venom to start shifting from being deadly to primates to being just painful. And so really, it's extraordinarily unlucky that the biochemistry of this very painful venom that keeps mammals off the spider's back is so utterly lethal to people. It is truly an evolutionary accident. But it is no accident that it hurts a lot, but doesn't kill the rest of the mammal family tree.

Matt, thank you very much for joining us.

Jason, it's been my pleasure.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. If you like us, give us a rating on Apple Podcasts and see you back here tomorrow.