Nagorno-Karabakh: An Overview of the Conflict

Conflict Analysis by Mounia El Khawand, Staff Writer

October 6th, 2020

Since the end of the Cold War, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been locked in an ongoing territorial dispute. The protracted conflict revolves around Nagorno-Karabakh, a region within Azerbaijan controlled by ethnic Armenians backed by Yerevan since 1994. Indeed, following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Armenian separatists seized the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, triggering a three-year war that would claim the lives of tens of thousands of people and drive hundreds of thousands from their homes. In 1994, the Minsk Group, jointly presided over by Russia, France, and the United States, managed to broker a ceasefire and the cessation of military hostilities. 

Over the next twenty-six years, the precarious peace has been disrupted by a number skirmishes and armed disputes, the most violent of which erupted in 2016, resulting in approximately 200 lives lost. In July of 2020, clashes between the two former Soviet Union republics further caused the death of 16 people.

On Sunday, the 27th of September, 2020, fighting broke out once more between the two neighbors, in what is arguably the most intense escalation since 2016, leaving the international community in disarray. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan responded to the violent clashes by declaring martial law and beginning a large-scale mobilization of their armies. 

The conflict opposes on the Muslim-majority and oil-rich Azerbaijan to Christian Armenia, which, though poorer in natural resources, benefits from an extensive and highly influential diaspora. 

Assessing the true extent of damages that have ensued since the fighting began has proven difficult, since both parties reported numbers that have been denied by the other. However, several dozen killed and hundreds of wounded – both civilians and military personnel – have been confirmed on both ends. 

Even the origins of the escalation have yet to be established, with each country blaming the other for throwing the proverbial first punch. Birmingham University’s Dr. Kevork Oskanian argues that Armenia seeks to normalize the status quo and consolidate its control over Nagorno-Karabakh. Consequently, it would have little to no interest in stirring up conflict in the region. Other causes for the flare up have also been brought forth. From Azeri Prime Minister Ilham Aliyev’s yet unfulfilled promise to establish Baku’s control over the disputed territory to the July skirmished that spurred many Azerbaijani youth to declare their willingness to take up arms against Armenia, to the recent COVID-19 pandemic that has exacerbated governance issues and lacking social safety nets on both sides, the outburst of violence can be attributed to a number of factors.

Despite the long-standing – though oft violated – ceasefire, no peace treaty has ever brought the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to a close. The underlying ethnic implications only serve to further thwart any peacemaking process. Oskanian told Euronews, “This is an issue of identity for both sides. […] Nagorno-Karabakh is central to the identity of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis — it is very hard to compromise when it's about such a deep-held part of your identity.” 

With the security of the Caucasus and critical energy routes hanging in the balance, the conflict has quickly attracted the attention of a number of key international players.

On Tuesday, the 29th of September, the United Nations Security Council convened in a closed-doors meeting at the end of which they called for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the resumption of peace talks, providing support to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ call for peaceful conflict resolution. Almost simultaneously, the Armenian and Azerbaijani representatives at the 75th General Assembly of the United Nations were pointing fingers at each other by force of right of replies, blaming the other for the fighting.

Regionally, Iran is reluctant to get involved, and Russia, who entertains favorable relations with both belligerents, can only call for an immediate ceasefire without favoring one side over the other. The other co-chairs of the Minsk Group, the United States and France – who had to prepare a plane to evacuate two Le Monde reporters who were wounded amidst the fighting –have also been demanding a termination of armed hostilities. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Aliyev and Pashinyan to open negotiations and find a diplomatic solution to the rapidly escalating conflict. In a joint statement, both the UK and Canada expressed concern over the situation, a sentiment also shared by Pope Francis.

Both Armenia and Azerbaijan, however, do not seem eager to return to the negotiations table. Aliyev said: “The Armenian prime minister publicly declares that Karabakh is [part of] Armenia, period. In this case, what kind of negotiating process can we talk about?” Pashinyan later replied, “It is very hard to talk about negotiations ... when specific military operations are underway.”

The most prominent international actor, however, remains Turkey. With longstanding aspirations of becoming the regional hand that rocks the cradle, Turkey has released several strongly-worded and nearly warmongering statements declaring its full support for Baku to which French President Emmanuel Macron replied, “France remains extremely concerned by the warlike messages Turkey had in the last hours, which essentially remove any of Azerbaijan’s inhibitions in reconquering Nagorno-Karabakh. And that we won’t accept.” Turkey’s decisive backing of Azerbaijan is further cemented by a mutual distrust between Ankara and Yerevan. Moreover, expressing support to a fellow Turkic State is sure to enhance Erdogan’s image domestically. 

However, Turkey’s involvement may go beyond words. Armenia accused Turkey of shooting down one of its aircrafts, effectively killing the pilot. However, no proof was brought forward, and Turkey repudiated the claim.  

Syrian mercenaries may have also joined the fray. While both Turkey and Azerbaijan denied the presence of Syrian mercenaries in Nagorno-Karabakh and accused Armenia of hiring Kurdish militants, several men from Idlib approached The Guardian, telling reporters they have been offered contracts about a month ago to work as guards in Azerbaijan for three to six months. This could potentially be a sign that Azerbaijan was preparing for a military altercation. 

Unfortunately, too many unknowns remain at play, and until both belligerents stop their back-and-forth finger-pointing, no diplomatic agreement can be reached in the near future. Any possible settlement plan would need to be a holistic and exhaustive agreement, touching on the military, political, legal, social, cultural, and ethnic aspects of the conflict. Both parties must remember the toll that war takes on soldiers and civilians alike, and a repeat of the events of 1994 should be avoided at all costs.