THE GORDIAN KNOT OF THE CAUCASUS THE CONFLICT OVER NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Wojciech Górecki WARSAW MAY 2020
THE GORDIAN KNOT OF THE CAUCASUS THE CONFLICT OVER NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Wojciech Górecki © Copyright by Centre for Eastern Studies
CONTENT EDITORS Adam Eberhardt, Krzysztof Strachota
EDITORS Małgorzata Zarębska, Tomasz Strzelczyk
CO-OPERATION Katarzyna Kazimierska
TRANSLATION Iwona Reichardt
CO-OPERATION Jim Todd
GRAPHIC DESIGN PARA-BUCH
MAP Wojciech Mańkowski
DTP IMAGINI
PHOTOGRAPH ON COVER Wojciech Mańkowski
Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, 00-564 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (+48) 22 525 80 00, [email protected] www.osw.waw.pl
ISBN: 978-83-65827-51-7 Contents
KEY POINTS | 5
INTRODUCTION | 8
I. THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED | 11
II. FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN POSITIONS | 16
III. IN THE SHADOW OF KARABAKH | 19 1. The conflict’s impact on Azerbaijan and Armenia | 19 1.1. The political and military dimension | 19 1.2. The economic dimension | 28 1.3. The social dimension | 30 2. The conflict’s regional significance | 33 2.1. The political dimension | 33 2.2. The economic dimension | 46 2.3. The social dimension | 48 3. The conflict and its more distant neighbourhood | 50 3.1. Iran and Turkey’s positions | 50 3.2. The position of the West | 52
IV. SUMMARY AND FORECASTS | 55
APPENDIX 1. Outline of the conflict’s history (1987–2020) | 58 APPENDIX 2. The peace process | 67 APPENDIX 3. The conflict’s military dimension | 81 APPENDIX 4. The Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic | 87
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS | 90
MAP | 93 • • • KEY POINTS KEY
‑determined (the country The Kremlin’s Turkey) To a great conflict The Moscow Nagorno For 2018, map ratives mined its important instrument in the the tions, to the political prevent been between as well societies. security ening efit. ceasefire, oil of exploited entire
the prevent the disposal, and network Association political, Russia, In 2013 of
ongoing and as well region, Yerevan foreign Armenia unrecognised
the gas as intensive and the supported and ‑Karabakh), elites Azerbaijan challenge
This latter Russia the in extent, one South pipelines. Azerbaijan have the for collapse Moscow
allow of the the is the over military, as to namely struggle and
since good regional from to now with maintaining Agreement Nagorno and
course has homogenous deliberately case Caucasus, power Russia the the domestic stop Azerbaijan, for propaganda the Azerbaijan’s relations and 1987 of the the taken effectively is Nagorno The conflict while
Georgia, of Nagorno economic
state both the for from a result alliances main Turkey’s of
beginning, removal ‑Karabakh Turkey) – who Azerbaijan to (and
transport Nagorno on Soviet with contributing in 2016 push policies. states, affiliation its getting ‘window cultivated in the ‑Karabakh with which nature led defending ‑Karabakh influence of forced presented the the post (Armenia and expansion has through role of Union.
mass to and it both and ‑Karabakh
and
European conflict its case and are ‑Soviet In both closer has soft prompted also full of of to Armenia at of informal still
the at expulsions to
mediator Yerevan still Later communication ‑scale de facto de the both Republic, of the power the
in had any conflict Nagorno with by times the
into to images history. Armenia has states the has world’ Soviet in same both an impact Union establishment solutions Azerbaijan’s it Western in
war Russia both power,
region. to instruments a serious the become been backed the protective and their and governments, the has withdraw time, ‑Karabakh, as well of status quo and for It remains in 1992–94) region. most (most parties
ruled Baku, intermediary, the their conflict and also
Armenia state and states In the forced that Armenia, on a beneficiary its routes, important most impact Azerbaijan as determining likely a third
shaped and hostage. mutual the umbrella who Since together to ‑building and are
from and that has early and the the migrations,
which state important Armenia’s
and has to including who existence by have trying on the 1994 in it brought greatest country conflict signing institu its today’s enemy. threat a very phase, has deter a link order of their until with have with over
of ben nar pre has
all. to
at it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
5 OSW REPORT 5/2020 6 OSW REPORT 5/2020 • • •
(the para The West Turkey The international would with which wants Nagorno However, ities. instability’ ora ‘hotcoldwar’. Bothsidesaccuseoneanotherof military network republics’ include responsible not that this the to fire from first forces have as the and ally atres elites especially on decreased operates stop a scale managed South violations escalated its part time years been Russia At the of each with prevention to entail to took activities intensive and France
war ‑Karabakh activity Nagorno of ‑states there of control it) has showed the reduced, beyond since independence after Caucasus as there other). losing
oil the the same place (the North for a great (Syria to practically after 2003, conflict daily and as one and settle
the 1994 nearby world. the of the in in power. fighting ‑Karabakh. attention of time, that the despite
Thus, the Abkhazia and gas Nagorno and the are successful
has (shelling
risk any and Nagorno became the of region’s still United the With pipelines). conflict its important neither no the
never Caucasus ceasefire of the further accepted the reaching conflict and Washington focus (the ‘four
threat the peacekeeping remains failure, paid wider ‑Karabakh co‑chairs
its current enemy and an area has ‑Karabakh States). boundaries. been implementation lack zone, Baku is proximity to escalation single of been its South now Russia’s area) transport Middle their For the which
a ‘frozen’ of quite ‑day resumed positions), intensity nor situation especially After of
of (which the Nagorno more progress ‑handed pushing resumes, peak
and Ossetia),
rivalry the peace war’). Yerevan forces could East), an important dominant moment, to of the corridors, on other OSCE
in 2016 hot military the conflict, was supports collapse
can of ‑Karabakh the and in and because the Nonetheless, process, its to between in this
spots conflict. not regional want turn low. regional Minsk region’s separate be shared resolving development there bring the position (the ‘four
would to described action it is even Yet, threaten of and
a new West’s the Moscow mention political whose
are the its Group Moscow conflict energy neighbourhood stability possible tensions important lead conflict former though the peacekeeping in still Soviet regular Moscow 20–30 cease the ‑day war, aspirations
the the two to co‑chairs (the body as ‘stable generally issue of Iran remains, projects, conflict. has (which a crisis war’ as that as well
region Union, that Soviet ruling in gradu a new zones sides fatal
also and the has the for
of if ‑ ‑ ‑
• • • •
Armenia Arguably, At the we Unless Nagorno It appears Russia interest military the to that favourable zone hinders) has less by both states of of overall of question or existential conflict
self a different issues contention). a partial a complete should external regularly significance would Baku and ‑determination, is moment, would there rules to in not potential, ‑Karabakh and/or them of such the that the its expect and to maintaining satisfy threat
resolution Nagorno so context of are advantage. Russia, strong existing been not main as the from at lack large Yerevan,
The settlement conflict Azerbaijan, neither than some the to the allow them) the violated). of reaching has player success ‑Karabakh’s as to (a weaker Azerbaijan. which moment inviolability
current state the to trust which difference changes settlement the Armenia Thus, although side now on the
guarantee political or sells of a conflict the between status quo status conflict of in has an agreement. To the a war there
lasted situation limbo at Russia,
of the other. in practice weapons In addition, final least
in the of to this both the considerations. have is in peace
the a victory state fail, credit (that more to between Baku capabilities no
for legal At the the dispute domestic simultaneously (since remain sides military in chance been prevents while to now, borders neighbourhood is, process the than and of status, both moment, one they despite vary
for the Yerevan formulated is Nagorno their fundamentally Yerevan, Turkey of situation capacity impeded 5 years 25 sides, Baku. which to OSCE and (or at cannot
in which is either We military militarily Azerbaijan’s their that the with the and should among ‑Karabakh could does Minsk least and is a comprehensive between of reach on (a deep status quo status (even and the right Stepanakert) interpretations the the
the potential the not
significantly their other react assume ceasefire accepted unchanged. resolve main emergence Group, of Caucasus), a solution though one cover growing
crisis peoples conflict the shared
things. to is point hand
is that also two any the the the by or in in of it
7 OSW REPORT 5/2020 8 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‑term Azerbaijan, theirdomesticandforeign policies, andeven theiridentities;ithas Azerbaijanis) This The current The conflict USSR However, From Its INTRODUCTION respond recognised mainly military in important ing its in 1987, half tions (for example, inthe first tury, the this conflictisalsocharacterisedby towhich thehighdegree thepeaceprocess pendence. problems powers both been responsiblefor theunprecedentedethnicandculturalhomogenisation of accompanying as each ambition, were alsovery active intheregion. social space. energy) dimensions: the different internal most was is states. the
perspective – the and region. connections. At the true Armenian, arrived inPoland year (Iran thereby and action – offering with West
important very
with in the The conflict and more especially state cohesion The conflict levels – passed political between social. the and At that
turn over the process too, it beginning, indispensable what remaining and first has and of military Turkey), truth, and Nagorno
of the this In addition could bilateral, strategic been time such (including was
more and Armenia years
in the 1990s, by has conflict especially risk has regards though,
which known it creating a scenario destabilise institutionalised. support external which often played ‑Karabakh the was after of also intermediary regional instrument
such results and to oldest military),
widely the to it as effectively left as military as ‘soft of the the at the a key to new became Russia, actors theSouth Caucasus). However,alone from
Azerbaijan the 1990sfrom 50,000 to 80,000 refugees, a scenario was that then a mark the United Soviet both significant from unresolved and is believed networks role deemed
security’, time region multi Soviet economic for have which international – sides, (even a catalyst its At least untiltheturnof Union’s on States, in incidents Russia long were ‘frozen’. shrank, ‑level been shaping (and that the
(and republics highly and in number today, of conflict and including whole (especially
was growing the
a possible collapse, in the involved political, and for later beyond), while were This rich the likely time today’s the an important Armenians the multi
have of region, in gained became South history. conflict did
recorded the of in actors the collapse massive in other in economic resumption transport
‑dimensional. and the Armenia regular strength not the conflict the post
disrupting Caucasus). their following It started the generate involved, fully medium thiscen regional remains conflict. and ‑Soviet migra player of in
fight most inde
was and and and and cor the the the of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Yet (2014), vided years The Appendices The aim This The outbreak wars were Nagorno numerous regional region mary in includes the the 1994 ceasefire – the peaceprocessmechanisms,to thestagnant influencedthewiderperceptionof the there was crisis(2015)and –morebroadly – theunprecedentedmigration deep these flict focus ground Chapter Three – and and itsnature. Chapter Two presentsthepositionsof to as a crucial situation change even changes escalation the with conflict’s actors status quo status the report has though in Russia’s outline included of of in since region the while as it among Iraq
Russian Appendix 1) the ‑Karabakh and Chapter One time policy; of role had numerous and who of whole risks
is this its whole and was the
political, relative . tensions. in envisioned in on and map a the the annexation of the had outbreak the the the while ‑Georgian main publication
Syria, of both the included overshadowed armed time, Nagorno significance in launch report
experts traditionally politics existential but Middle demonstrated historical longest the which of stability. actors is economic states the
as well and the their the clashes as a concise more and and of of ‑Karabakh complex in war
since 2003 and of East seem whole subject
in
in is new, and Crimea the the
contemporary an attempt both At the as the distant of this references to importance this (2008). by politicians and the been in 2016 –
end important the its period describe alternative of new that conflict Baku system report – matter cultural compendium worsening
place same Arab and the conflict conflict are involved neighbourhood. there events the In the
and of Caucasus to the an integral Spring. which time, (with in are of
the dealing of threat to over outline in has analyses turbulences. Yerevan, interests.
transportation for
gradually outbreak the co‑dependencies the wider both and the more in characteristics crises the been 25 years its additional was the policies of Nagorno On the of context
processes. ceased with a prognosis
Armenia conflict individual interested the Baku and
post a new region. the part a steady after 2003 the as well Chapter Four Unavoidably, of receded conflict this ‑Soviet impact global As a result,
since most of of war to ‑Karabakh of war continued
information
routes
This, the be the issue. as the In the and the increase Yerevan, while in of in actors, has
for in intense into the a priority scale, remains included generational
that space, other maintaining publication. the the Azerbaijan. the in the generated (2005–06) The main Kremlin’s Caucasus, ceasefire. the is addition not the the current Donbas conflict 30-plus in as well to future. a sum states in these since back turn, only play real, text con pro
the the for ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
9 OSW REPORT 5/2020 10 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Armenia The above The report while resolution tary framework, deals dimension with pedx 2 Appendix and ‑mentioned the currently is main the completed
Nakhchivan of unrecognised
initiatives the discusses under
Appendix 1 conflict by Autonomous a list discussion). and the (including Nagorno
of summarises proposals, peace
abbreviations ‑Karabakh Republic Appendix 3 process the as well military
the
conflict’s (its which and Republic), as the concentrates formats, potentials a map. belongs
elements history while organisational of to
(1987–2020), Azerbaijan,
on Appendix 4 Azerbaijan. of the
conflict mili ‑
Azerbaijan. The subject 6 5 3 2 while with 4 1 During Nagorno I. THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT CONFLICT THE OF NATURE I. THE is internationally is the territories, the these lands. forces Socialist background by eastern east The former NKAO: The independence Nagorno Azerbaijani The conflict Stepanakert ‑Armenian AND THE PARTIES INVOLVEDPARTIES THE AND Armenian forces. The область To distinguish will Shusha here issue recognised is dispute. area armed ties territory). unrecognised by small still early 1990s. parts a non international the
the state of in be took mainly were goes the parts the
Armenians,
parts phase. force Republic: the ‑Karabakh used (in Armenian: ‑autonomous ). ‑Karabakh remaining of dominated non The name clashes beyond Soviet Nagorno affiliation the only
control of that
NKAO spelling:
The main
used developed today (in quotation there the A full by ‑recognised
them, of the by area (known are 6 any unrecognised to
Lesser of occurred. Even the (February 2020), the was the is (in Azerbaijani: ‑Karabakh ‑scale refer period, Nagorno conflict under the
as they of also Xankəndi. other the law – part by over Republic Shushi)
Russian scope controlled gradually. the dominated territories former NKR Azerbaijanis. to western of
though war city separatist of marks, Baku’s state. Caucasus, Nagorno lies the in
are Over de facto this Azerbaijan; Nagorno of is all the Autonomous was and that ‑Karabakh whole Federation recognised this the a part in a dispute
these part the control; 1987 because NKAO)
area the Dağlıq disputed (NKR), by fought although ‑Karabakh this (even paper) the authorities has Azerbaijani territory, following by ruleover theareaisexercised by theso‑called
of For the were of should Shusha 2 ‑Karabakh, non historical it is
(with disputed current Qarabağ, the as well clarity Armenian although in 1992–94, been and area, for by Oblast and ‑autonomous by as a result both
a para Abkhazia itself ethnically a direct Baku be a few over district Republic i.e. the Nagorno area years the are
seen Yerevan). of going the and (in Russian: side
in Karabakh. the everything argumentation, as the discussed.
neighbouring other conflict was population, tensions
the Russian: ‑state which belonged as the language territories former ( violate exception and raion Armenians
the a territory (a para Azerbaijani part on Azerbaijan, states), an autonomous ‑Karabakh future South
of ). adjacent start ended NKAO para for 3 it Its The remaining escalated, supported Нагорно Нагорный
‑state) of taken affects regularly military Formally – eastern
with Ossetia and date,
more areas to the s Khankendi as claim with ‑state’s the (without ethnic and of are
the over by the will the
located ‑Карабахская when
term
republic. territories some gradually a truce controlled Transnistria, does term
(which section, the their Карабах (see Republic than as a whole
be by exception Azerbaijan activities
Nagorno by
the used parts the Armenia composition de facto de not Appendix 1). ‘occupied whole oblast rights in agreement; northern are, 30 years earlier
Armenia in first Lower form ), moving when accordance of by called in Armenian the of ‑Karabakh to автономная
the 4 is Azerbaijani occupied
a para Armenians. ). is turn, (NKAO of part mentioned the them, territories’
Karabakh, the
capital, part during occupied in disputed n the In Artsakh South Soviet
into these
city this now of activi ‑state solely fact and but this the the of of of 5 is is ) ‑ 1 ‑
11 OSW REPORT 5/2020 12 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (the Nagorno (with 7 Armenian Azerbaijan vice vehicles, The Nagorno They Karabakh Nagorno jects, ities its nia’s in roads) today territories’, that played personal latter, be ation and and and a presidential out divided cal offices of cess, For
line difference own nego’ no. 285, see stressed and
even
which symbols depends it in in passports where are Armenia is more W. Górecki, (February 2020), the receives a special a key , which with
in Nagorno 22 May 2019, Yerevan. presidential, business into reflected ‑Karabakh 10 September 2018, while the of contacts, help independent on clan
‑Azerbaijani conflict ‑Azerbaijani had in
the it is the key removing that role two ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh possibility (although on and connect exchange and system, ‘A revolution
of all (a group conscripts to previously Armenians ‘land place ‑Karabakh. represented importance
during it parts:
the From 1997/98 interests, www.osw.waw.pl. in intermediaries) identity, supplies, travel Azerbaijan, politically, and the Republic the parliamentary for para is Nagorno Karabakh while including the Armenia). www.osw.waw.pl; has the the format assigned for of of Republic conflict abroad, in peace’ ‑state from
instalments. which former been returning politicians have including war and its NKR security At the for by Armenia is, militarily, clan ‑Karabakh which own Yerevan). formula. of Armenia with Azerbaijan to 2018, still the in union is not , should have flag Armenia’s to is
is from They because the by NKAO same closely practice, reflected para tools and two not Whither hold on guarantees W. Górecki, the arms – is have them. power peace whose Armenian has republics principle were based regarded local ‑state’s Armenia so‑called be time, economically may and leaders The para to significant with it is been bound and Pashinyan’s moved judiciary first In regards informally talks and a branch in also roots the elections, be its on ‘Armenia: the being Armenia, independent and security – its for conflict
and the sent of of ‘occupied excluded registration that as a party which protecting was corridors to ‑state’s para to own lay
the Nagorno Armenia later Armenia Armenian Armenia system waged assets a parliamentarian foremost to nowa of of with and ruled in ‑state to
and influence USSR. political do
are Lachin Armenia). assumed the the residents the runda the it is returning socially. territories’. now?’ their and by (land its and to being ‑Karabakh by their states new Armenian has old and other plates through The separatist two through the own defined side
konfliktu , the OSW Commentary OSW and cash mass elite system military NKAO, some the strips Azerbaijan the own conducted peace since 1991, equal use ‘occupied has This It should emblems so‑called in Kalbajar. on them inflows highest author media. Armenia, politycz In the Arme sense politi as an ruled inter them itself, their state (it is one), with who situ sub pro ser to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 7 ‑ ,
The conflict’s andforemost relatedtotherefugee issue, socialdimensionisfirst The Nagorno 8 9 who was Muslims, Nagorno inevitably in nian the the the tions tism of the 1992–94 war, parties, phase ples key beliefs but between a change a wider and sionist rebellionby a province againstthemetropolis –even though thesepara ship conflict also ethnic in nature in ethnic also conflict ethnically especially discussed Moreover, This terms After Turkey, gian fighters already former conflict, two also and the to (by were of inhabitants between
of opinion government Nagorno
a certain consider land, that peoples). including reach; aversion ‑Karabakh involving the
from of Yerevan
but arrived the in (estimated the conflict is not of a religious nature a religious of not is conflict the in expelled have the homogenous. Basayev
NKAO). many folklore also the Armenian the
Chapter Three. is primarily a political conflict a political primarily is was ‑Karabakh military the question Yerevan in it to a different ‑Karabakh ethnic Armenians areas forces also themselves and extent 8 Nagorno Azerbaijanis. takes went
that of and
at Moscow, Armenian Even Armenians Armenians from In addition,
spread between 100 and Azerbaijan later (that
to Stepanakert taken activity both composition and and place ‑Karabakh Abkhazia
though of was language conflict, the Thus, when due conflict
by historical was supported by the made Turkish Ankara, nations as Christians, over to even ‘occupied the diaspora), between to 400 talking
not the it are internally . where Azerbaijani any the also by underwent In the
was four by support which attempts (they inspired only different the
since did in majority felt about and change peoples Armenian and he
memory ‑day number) end presented not the territories’, supported early from given
speak towards as well is the of 1991 influences the the become displaced
war Armenian and a bilateral to by from ‘Turks’, inhabitants of led situation to forced (this Armenia’s ‘velvet phase, of Armenia play (their and , their
the Armenia. in 2016).
the religious Azerbaijanis the forces by but Armenians
as between as such, one their stayed Azerbaijani Shamil conflict are separatists this and status quo status another migrations. own it persons the revolution’ homeland , referring
another. and have even took dispute of in and compatriots there card.
public to Basayev. relationships The complex of nature).
dialect) The conflict the and a lesser the
directly Armenia side Nagorno fighting the until in though who important 9 Armenia (and (the Azerbaijanis not local
practice and some must
Azerbaijani by over Most This form was the of 2018
only hold As a result Chechen and against Turks) government, extent
populations summer likely affects
in in affected the to ‑Karabakh makes also interested and of they relations religious Turks Armenia between and also the
become catalyst
a seces will guerrilla owner they the Arme mean of 1992. from to first rela Tur also peo from Geor has
the had be be by of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
13 OSW REPORT 5/2020 14 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (EAEU) (all At the internationallevel, which principally refers totheregion’s closestneigh viction without will Minsk United Nagorno In addition, ran, ing methods in nally turn, the the porting predominant Moscow’s goal when involving itself in the conflict has always been to been always has conflict the in itself involving when Moscow’sgoal fire maintain control over the region overthe control maintain lished bours both On the and 2). and Russia, andmorebroadly thepost s well as as the sia’s collapse, expulsions out ence efforts crucial the the post the transfer of agreement) be getting support a participant the displaced an attempt
Iran conflict most it to Group, regional
to make proposed States), military that Later, Caspian’s discussed under ‑Soviet s the as young ‑Karabakh peace in course of Moscow resolve and in
the Moscow activities important the involved of corresponded the paradigm Russia
threat in (in this
in final
statehoods nineteenth Turkey, space the level, Azerbaijanis these peace, phase exploitation and
of resolutions the at addition oil Nagorno more unequivocally in
in the conflict Republic –
a ‘return
dismantling has intermediary and took conflict). of Russia hpe Three). Chapter (it forced in territories and the (1992–94) or report, and conflict
distant and taking the (the ‘end used natural at conflict on means ‑Karabakh, in to century)
indispensable was to then least has conflict to to France the of the to the the see the away Over future). the Armenia
and the the been these first it
to supported name the role gas some conflict of it
Chapter Three). and Kremlin’s of term (as one supported conflict ,
majority has Baku’s Caucasus’ the and time, including the
its
as intermediaries and broadly ‑Soviet space).PriortotheSoviet Union’s regarded resources. history’ and of resources so During at kind of informal
used,
peace ‘region’ arbitrator Soviet rebuild to the the to the still
of spreading Russia of foresee control, join develop
Baku, of interests the
of interested United understood the same Yerevan. remains which thesis),
process. (after
the that
as the
quasi the empire. the refers There their mediators. would
protective three devised local while the (contributing time Eurasian which period, ‘occupied its ‑peace Russia have States, stability main influence at the gradual the was to and In both integration According co‑chairs
be transportation parties For the a party during West the a position actor changed West seriously might
mediators a widespread obstacle umbrella
(see then, had Regardless
which Ankara time Economic South territories’ and return (especially instances, most tried was in pushed Appendices 1 the undertaking of to lead (this Russia to democracy, projects the was with
the the
Caucasus to conflict’s for impeded also and the involved over to of was, to region. access routes. Union of policy
cease estab OSCE them inter influ itself
time, then new Teh was
Rus sup con and the the the in in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
‑Tbilisi ‘the conflict around Nagorno around ‘the conflict When (Armenia (which with would threaten to destabilise several states and cause a crisis that wouldthat a crisis cause and severalstates destabilise to wouldthreaten Nagorno In addition, Turkey hadtheambitiontocreatea blocof integration Nagorno flict that a potential resumption of military activities in Nagorno in activities military of resumption a potential that means South) to North and West to East (from corridors transport tant as its as well East) Middle broader the and (Syria spots hot and theatres Since go beyond the regional scale. regional beyondthe go by gia cal issue in this part of theworld. The zone’scal issue inthispartof proximity toimportantwar conflict ence shared neighbourhood with Russia, Iran and Turkey and with impor with and Turkey and Iran Russia, with neighbourhood shared the in 2008) and in an increase the ‑Erzurum West discussing would its such ‑Karabakh the ‑Karabakh conflict is still – also at this level –‑Karabakh conflict is still – an important politi ‑Russia, launch direct processes, and engagement as well as its include its (BTE) neighbourhood. of of Russia’s Azerbaijan gradual
conflict impact Russia’s the as the Azerbaijan), it gas Baku seems of activity establishment pipeline decrease
has on other ambitions ‑Tbilisi ‑Turkey), ‑Karabakh’ justified oil in players, fact and in while in ‑Ceyhan of regards the 2000s,
interest decreased. gas and the to Iran of refer . as well transportation assertiveness international
the (BTC) was to in to current the and the as analysing Potentially,however,the the trying oil Nagorno region, the Turkic matter pipeline network to change (the war significance or limit which ‑language states with the ‑Karabakh aspects and of the of ‑Karabakh post the with
coincided
priorities the alliances US ‑Soviet phrase of of Baku Geor pres
con this the ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
15 OSW REPORT 5/2020 16 OSW REPORT 5/2020 “the Armenia Azerbaijan versus peoples’self was while 11 10 In Baku’s Baku’s In Yerevan’s assessmentthe‘nationof II. FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN POSITIONS IN DIFFERENCE II. FUNDAMENTAL republics independence integrity recognised, ment thereby to the perspective, point preted lability ber 1991 be guished Over contradictions: oblast. external or old Just
separate Moscow made. T. Świętochowski, cally laterally – republics annexed and norm union Nagorno organised two of the of Russia. after consent these as borders This of
contemporary putting and the view, borders – appeals decades does In response, were one that
Crimea, view, republics was their the
refers from by is Colonialism, shape requires view ‑Karabakh conflict fundamental which
collapse subject Russia that is from of the after not to of of geography this borders. moves beneficial
Azerbejdżan i Rosja. Kolonializm, islam i narodowość w podzielonym kraju n end an Azerbaijan to
to ago, the no the an administrative is is ‑determination”. fact of as with include alone, to the the Baku confirmed of the in new rendered not not essential
needs referendum which discussion; the Professor state Islam the the researchers the principle that principle
conflict local independent when beneficial to shared In Baku’s interested Soviet before norms and were Armenian Iran to versus Soviet the borders Baku’s to in this in 2008 their Azerbaijanis Nationality however, take significance. widely Union, the the former the Tadeusz and has the by decision of of of was Union), demographics, states. referendum jurisdiction referendum side of interpretation, is
earlier 10
into it territorial the Azerbaijan. (which parties criticised and collapse been Turkey), international the
Indeed,untiltoday bothsideshave inter
Nagorno recognised interpreted a consensus side the of in NKAO, issue right is Such Świętochowski
not account a Divided key Caucasus, affected interpreted was argues and decision had worldwide. to of coincide a revision a national As the of importance; of their revising integrity come Abkhazia ‑Karabakh’ expressed theirwill not
which was no which
the been over peoples illegal, Country], In their the as broadly that the law by reached changes this recognised final USSR. borders stated to by was the the forced current, with the inviolability actually took and as narrowly in Azerbaijan’s an agreement. nature , the means of and borders eventually Warsaw 1998, to one form, to former a contradictory opinion, sphere in South
From states that self recognise the place NKAO in addition, to of thus as possible. of
this ‑determination. (apart of
internationally Ossetia from the
that leave borders proclaimed in from the the the and carried of on autonomous it either authorities, most p. 229. them the regard as possible,
of former insolvable Armenian any territorial old could 10 Decem Yerevan’s
its this the and from [Azerbaijan 11
the borders out – lack automati of outset union distin settle in 2014 invio Baku union area. way: vote
can not the the uni its of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Yerevan (a similar The above whether without 12 UN Nagorno Baku’s mise. Baku hasruledoutgiving upNagorno internally insists in nated the the pressure for theterritoriesthey are occupyingfrom in‘non having have a large also authorities inBaku, andsince as the about such say stage self extremely ever, outside cussion of Resolutions
Azerbaijan the 30 April to
a partial
‑determination Security ‘occupied that arbitrary questioned leave this any a decision, of by different unblocking Azerbaijani that narrative, extent earlier
the on the excludes any ‑Karabakh
if genuine the Armenians from and was legal process
displaced unlikely arguments the the the agreement
NKAO). negotiations, districts no. 822, Council 12 November 1993. preconditions. territories’, a reciprocal decision become could
convinced status Armenian conflict effects a society forms the it or the
the has of 853, state. they could 12 that Republic idea by just persons
resolutions do transport in
of
possibility 874 Caucasian been show of radicalised for with had establishing settlement of the
their Yerevan the
a part
of It has that and 884 the after now
the occupied. government Baku the action, the
They a simple
same Azerbaijan taking former In this that
but (IDPs) former had republic broader Armenia’s ‘velvet revolution’ (spring 2018)ithas future Soviet encounter all of
also routes.
condemned were wants calling
also
of will there
Armenians new through because, other thanks become must place
agreed passed respect, NKAO to Stepanakert swap Armenia, oblast’s in (the Azerbaijani recognise authorities negotiation their
Armenian Baku them (‘land did tries is for elements Armenia. provide acts
in
by extremely to physical
of
different a more tired for the to
‑Karabakh, andisonly ready totalk have Azerbaijan). the home. of
the the to also ‘occupied returned autonomy for have had violence
‑autonomous’ its United
withdrawal and return
the
influence for of Azerbaijani peace’). such becoming considers part Armenia’s have public to At the distant already tactics –
this resistance, the those
the para
Nations forms limited include and
an effect).
as soon any been territories’ side protracted issue return within called ‑state’s This same Thus, of Armenians future.
of Security of used
of territories was postponing subordinate the assumes
agreed
room Azerbaijan (those
side upon state a territory moved
hardened Armenian autonomy. time, of as possible it is not the adopted advisability independence. their
society
According Armenian (Azerbaijani) In regards Council refers
in propaganda crisis. for only framework justified upon, it to exchange here
resident remains without compro right the stance – the
between troops in under has to to
domi Baku How troops such that and last the the the dis
of to to to to to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
17 OSW REPORT 5/2020 18 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Admittedly, The only Turkey region, it military more the tive declarationstoseeka peacefulresolutiontheconflict.However,their official up States) both and at able states of extent, domestic ceasefire from
reaching a century its
Kremlin is actors. to sides decisively –
claims to that profiting force also both and and
keep force. situations thing line have war Russia, an agreement Iran. the has thus ago has sides’ Yerevan to
maintaining made For remains also Nagorno that policies some and at from This keep that room Baku, its which or made in links has and disposal influence issue an extension if the April 2016. both of
a possible ‑Karabakh. not talks for the it in
power Baku the plays the Armenia clear – will independent been states the alternative
fail positions status quo allows to be the on future, balances modified they But means reach and in discussed of the and key
it its the to Azerbaijan are situation , to is Azerbaijan of
role to which peace orbit. mobilise action of status quo status within a new
conduct ready Yerevan by the
forcing among in even
peace on was The West a later is war for their in its its has limited ‘crisis the
). result established the and Azerbaijan these a resolution (which For process, society, terms, done ruling part small conflict Baku Yerevan, management’ (mainly not by actors, so of but does correction elites. external the
only which more this in
over to region, the practice by government not may finally the the report. from To a great
often means a quarter potential is exclude alterna factors United not aimed in to as do their give and are the the be of ‑
Azerbaijan and Armenia are Armenia and Azerbaijan Azerbaijan The Nagorno 15 14 13 1.1. Armenia and Azerbaijan on impact 1. The conflict’s Nagorno For 21 on 27 November; 20 on 28 November; III. IN THE SHADOW OF KARABAKH OF SHADOW THE III. IN jani ities, relations. identity policiesandthekeystone of ince tion time of tion tinue the lenge by ber guns and on 25 November of ceasefire, domestic n late In
It is
ceasefire Stepanakert ситуации Communiqués is along sessed 2019 side’s The political both current (152 cases defence is line for in no
and mainly in to practically reflected writing(February 2020) bothsidesreportbetween 20 and mechanism the reports, the
several
the ‑Karabakh). occur, eebr 2019 December Baku (incidents and sniper Finally, which demarcation in northeast в зоне
as the area face violations ministry ‑Karabakh because foreign their while from and in impossible albeit months and in
for конфликта calmest of rifles, of has it total). it the the and the Yerevan,
monitoring state
security. also reported determines the the
line; the In practise, then, this is not a ‘frozen’ not is this then, In practise, policies, Azerbaijani OSCE been part reported with no region’s year by to were
military now. para South territory ‑building occur see These conflict verify peace observers за their of in in Appendix 1). varied ‑state’s
the the 10 лет’ It has
the 14 said the another affecting force this
along Ministry Caucasus For ceasefire relations ‑keeping 23 incidents shooting decade. opponent Nagorno the de facto de
, country; dimension data; ministry of has to monitor
Kavkazskiy processes, also intensity. example,
since theirnationalidentities. It hasalsoshaped networks Armenia have the ‘Нагорный Armenia had of (there
23 such had 23 on 29 November; and20 on 30 Novem not Defence Azerbaijani the
with ‑Karabakh still in a state of war. of a state in still politically, incidents, forces of come 12 May 1994, every see
a decisive
a significant only defence are demarcation Uzel, of on 24 November 2019 and These becoming (from the ,
of no Map).
fire Карабах www.mod.gov.az/en. incidents; 28 December 2019, from are political Azerbaijan
day. cameras their
issued outside upon have placed carried conflict ‑Armenian economically 15 a position 13 line both impact рапортовал
allies. In turn, This
communiqué a or the military
impact but only Azerbaijani rarely also any world. 22 on 26 November; territory foundation along has out is periodically. also other on resulted comment www.kavkaz the conflict.
the in on о border been with incidents самой even Armenia recording the Tavush
30 incidents biggest their and the Despite
para in controlled positions;
on the demarca which machine спокойной personal Also, Azerbai in of socially, outside
‑state’s the overall
- At the uzel.eu. devices
situa their fatal prov chal
other there con and it the
as ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
19 OSW REPORT 5/2020 20 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (in March 1992 Azerbaijan’s The degree with Moscow’s inabilitytoprevent theescalationof while, war, wounded as a result of 16 In its 24–30 November 2019) role radicals. in maintain ministry this that life baijan baijan itmuchweaker;get thecrisisundercontrol, butemerged from two years later, and and and ated states’ served since over demarcation cover of culminating earlier
living Armenian ‘Нагорный 30 November 2019, Nagorno issue
in maintain made forces
Abulfaz in he which position 31 cases
the early the
Azerbaijan tends a profound this political the to been any could Anti standards of ‑Karabakh significant tone Nagorno beginning it communiqués conflict, limits
success
to stages, led defence
easier advantage to Карабах in Elchibey, regarded line ‑Russian
armed per the purge of which down buy to and the life.
First on “around www.kavkaz day). army the soldier and
‑Karabakh social for the takeover (after offensive reinforced June 1993 read обвинил other The first of forces the stated the the defence earlier
oneof
regarding
Vice Armenia the sentiment lost
as ‘unremovable’ conflict (to read the the 1990s), On 29 November, was in political
social later Nagorno crisis a long combat 220 times” opposition
expenditures. ‑President. commented power Azerbaijani (even - that Азербайджан uzel.eu. of ‑mentioned theshootings weapons, spending, respectively; Republic in two the
a police President unrest had broke ‑lasting was more during this also
situation though elite ‑Karabakh as a result readiness, During presidents and
an even on most chapter).
(which to increased, about that
out. by and Also, but station while to side including the drop обстрелах 220 в take that correction Armenia’s on (they Ilham Russia’s an NKR evident nominate
16 had these only A series military the . Thissituationforces bothsidesto same
period the bigger had
the conflict which power. translates of Armenia in of frontline, in The Armenia’s been had
Armenia;
Aliyev’s war, the oil
wave events as a result foreign violated Azerbaijan, Yerevan Armenia’s obligations period the in 2016 soldier theconflictandfailure
prices).
and often in of generates situation forces his sparked impacts see purchase
while the of за violent ministry. prefers
into will direct wife position,
Appendix 1). неделю’ of ministry popular held the by for during was demarcation of the
In Armenia, of time be an average a group
by
to more Ayaz as an
current on ceasefire people
government case disappointment additional impact defensive acts allegedly their discussed , of the a drastic
of Kavkazskiy the (the week the
of to enthusiasm defence arms
Mutallibov on took ally newly the
positions the frontline of who four
political on In Azer Russia’s wounded
on armed line of do
(Azer mean badly place, point ones) did costs drop later both ‑day
had just Uzel, cre not the did not of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Armenians Azerbaijan with within 19 18 17 names. nonetheless ings, such as thoseorganisedwithintheCommonwealth of in tection. this to people framework, ful links so‑called or Neither On 12 March 2019 Twenty ‑autonomous this resign telephone Armenia Armenia с 12 March 2019, из would who щимся ceptable, Republic larger, keeping ruary 2019 jan of on of and as Bashkend) that the that to break. be sputnik.am group),
армянскими
decision Azerbaijan their being the Armenian Азербайджана crossed between from
Russian analysts have if on the is 19 chapter) not Such such Armenia’s
в Азербайджанскую although ‑five
the London many common missions limited Thus, Karabakh put in Armenia had on (NAR), but visited have framework and Ter to Shahin legally, . demarcation Federation few a business persons athletes
Georgia, as well In October 2019 February 1998. on from taken territory, its has should communications by enter persons occasions
www.mid.ru. ‑Petrosyan had the фамилиями’ Azerbaijan’s Armenia still which calls Nagorno in for border, the and been while
only claiming or research to Hajiyev, club as opposed problems армян, place whom two May 2019 from had Armenia take very Russian or official “were its clan because controlled as individual trip exclave which far is Transnistria Russia line
in 2005). and ‑Karabakh – informed are Arsenal, of also Armenia’s territory, these Armenia small, states; the
(before являющихся an Azerbaijani centres. between. have Azerbaijan’s (which
ignored”. list , Республику’ entering In 2018 nor the one Ministry can Kavkazskiy was from an exclave), authorities identified it of to, on representatives had circumstances of
scale; their the In the by is still has In the 2000s for peace the Henrikh his personae non grataenonpersonae no the participated Azerbaijan the inclined a few Azerbaijan told Azerbaijan’s
and Azerbaijani between Azerbaijan. which who example, be territory ‘Предупреждение journey, ethnic at regardless of Azerbaijani diplomatic it no 18 president, found border Azerbaijan Minister right included Foreign sportsmen
Uzel, , гражданами in kilometres that As a rule, negotiations. view journalist the have
means Baku is is based origin. ‑bank Ministry technically Mkhitaryan, the on only 17 October 2019, to the an ethnic the into since of been time in authorities ‘Азербайджан Affairs ‑Armenian them. have maps of of Azerbaijan activists make exchange remains the 2015 last Embassy border via Moldova. account. ‘Это that Foreign
working participating of to the on to under relations, his
(the only Levon issued Azerbaijan was official transit (four of the
РФ’ or грубое their recommended beginning guarantee
such
their possible Foreign There российским excessive political between , European from north
Armenia’s journalists. Sputnik, of border refused Affairs, in of starting Armenian a permit). The ministry’s Foreign for (Artsvashen, closed. through visit professionals discriminatory www.kavkaz them Ter
Moscow citizenship. озвучил нарушение: exceptions a professional non Armenian the Affairs of from and are of of outside ‑Petrosyan separatist the entry ‑governmental are Elmar Turan Games 11 January 2019, travellers does the an Azerbaijani opponents in control that
Azerbaijan’s a third concessions 17 Armenia’s them IndependentStates гражданам, there Nakhchivan no to of near условия of
war. The movement multilateral
to
their the (and are Mammadyarov, known the News Russian become - occurred These not air, in Захарова uzel.eu. communiqué at the ‑sounding country. since
practices Abkhazia Russian Baku. members adequate Baku conflict least can are travel northern въезда
allow Agency, side – rail a citizen was in small reach organisations citizens the footballer
not 16 citizens Autonomous visits journalist направляю from In early on Azerbaijani ru.armenia о a power justifies Federation, plans Travellers to or are zone высылке war’s are
a slightly россиян and forced of ethnic exclaves Azerbai postal went section meet stated Baku
at road stated peace going unac pro last they the are can non risk
Feb out of of to to of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
21 OSW REPORT 5/2020 22 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (PFA, (he Aliyev, Aliyev Armenia’s Armenia) The Nagorno 21 20 Levon jani nomic mittee’, non match to contrasthisrulewiththeshort president had have andpoliticalpositionsinthepara holding thehighestmilitary history. lapse Since Serzh baijani brought Baku and Yerevan under the rule of the Aliyevs and the ‘Karabakhians’ the and Aliyevs the of rule the Yerevanunder and Baku armed security of cesses cessors of of See,
Azerbaijan); reference. president Ancestors], 29 May 2019, ‘Отказ anniversary had ‑Communist authorities negotiated used
1992–93; of the Sargsyan
Ter for are crisis put in revolt stresses state
previously were the In Azerbaijan, was to guarantees). Мхитаряна
example, Baku, ‑Petrosyan, early of it modern refused only the power Wołowiec 2017, Soviet to
‑Karabakh in of has www.kavkaz and elected Armenia, Thus, and politicians the his whole legitimise
the 1990s outlined stage (2008–2018). from his issued created claiming
Heydar government been New the chaos. main the от statehood to Union, been uncompromising in
поездки Azerbaijan of chairman the 2003 20 prosperity blame travel the elites
his held Aliyev’s - him
even uzel.eu. conflict second a series opposition the here, the the As a result,
from on their leader that speeches see by
a permit conflict, which
long the в Баку with for conditions They
before (for edition, speech Party’s already but later elections such his the power has of the Front’s of of ‑time of ‑term ruleof more
they his
both поднял son
NKAO: the a dissident
have to in failures foundation played pp. 71–72). parts Azerbaijan’s its a trip failure the both
to
in 1993 Baku the and team had position Ilham.
First society. will republic’s participated on enter policies, for until collapse dominated вопрос
Aliyevs of on 26 November 2002, the have strong was Robert a key how be in
to in the Secretary ( this Heydar W. Górecki, Armenian the today In the
group elaborated thePopular Frontof Nagorno 21 the Nagorno политизации and too treated this
building role President claiming The current chapter). came of ties country Supreme Kocharyan UEFA risky
intransigence the (February 2020) in conflict the case in called Aliyev with
Toast za przodków of
the from shaping it ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh two Soviet
and
for the Europa as a permanent of later of
that war and In both спорта’
Heydar Nagorno ‘the the
Council, returned
Armenia, influenced states’ this the him Azerbaijani Communist president, (1998–2008)
‑state (thesepro
occasion with he the in Union. Karabakh Azerbaijan
,
modern organisation). League this (the Azerbai Kavkazskiy had with ceasefire cases, and Aliyev
post resulted Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan [A Toast ‑Karabakh.
the and of to chapter). received the His
the the ‑Soviet the regard power Ilham
office it elites Party point Final Azer Com then used
to first tenth and and suc eco Uzel, has col the he in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
(as a result Azerbaijan Armenians – and,by extension, alsotothe vision of Thus, This Turks 24 23 22 Presidents In Armenia, jan more international meetings ily andmakesrecognised, references totheNagorno to they to the to Azerbaijan’s from have give above, after and had and convincing cal organisations’ Even The political For the counter it). every
к Sargsyan, Ilham misation. framework observers of was camp inviolability
азербайджанскому the up may the have tried the 2016 Azerbaijan proved real,but unfavourable example, victory who the especially though
another on Armenia Aliyev to take Nagorno sharedby history a large partof occasion: be knew with ruling The ruling to not aim became often Kocharyan restoring of still of to support the explained in in demonstrate said: in
arena, our four the ‑Azerbaijan forums. its raised many his foreign to in several hundredthousand highlight
national the best poses chapter legitimacy country’s of ‑Karabakh the “We prior address exterminate them). elites society, war, ‑day base during elites
post war to
Azerbaijan’s Republican народу’ Armenia’s have Azerbaijan’s how the Azerbaijan, a threat and of ‑Soviet their He guests, to Azerbaijan war, by not to
and Nagorno in in the territorial interests. not the elections question to , some only
while the is that the Sargsyan, President both ‘Karabakh many of deviated their the states nation Armenians’ also defend Party
want fact ‑Karabakh ‘eternal’ President visits to there leaders narrative important flaws, states integrity, the borders Armenia’s government atthetimewas unable known elections guarantees after of territorial Armenia, the hence 22 of lost that by clan’, and Armenia. of
the the He Armenian abroad, best an inch is derived elections These his
the conflict conflict. control Republic no exploited raised which the during there victory are keeps Armenian to results Ter the Baku right from of Armenians living in alternative NK holidays demand more from status quo status presidents
and ‑Petrosyan, internally displacedpersons). the is integrity, nevertheless is of Armenians, thewar with and from […] in personified of possible – the no
conflict is to over repeating
between various his security of our Azerbaijan, one the Azerbaijani insisted This other ‑Karabakh questiononliterar more a ceremonial self during the issue principled presidential their interlocutors people and declarations a large lost conflict
‑determination; way.” is one narratives to which have determined play by as often crises.
of to the ceremonies, politically and personal their its 11 April 2018, that various Robert that that ‘Ильхам
Nagorno an important security position must against it.
part nature, Armenians kept appeal elections elite can even is only In this rule. Baku Kocharyan Armenia (in the be be internationally of as the of repeating Алиев and became international and on solved s presented as obtained contribution more
and
its 24 ‑Karabakh’s to en.president.az. on 11 April 2018, their support guarantees (the threat the will
international field They role way, 23 change partners. territory however, обратился within Azerbai settlement
Aliyevs. socially and and On the that of without never politi more trips, Also, they Serzh legiti also that
the for the of it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
23 OSW REPORT 5/2020 24 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Yerevan’). (to keep The situation after the ‘velvet revolution’ in Armenia in revolution’ ‘velvet the after The situation These wanted In May 2018 In Armenia, For its minister tences their positions. to towards that tricity tests to tally. tion tion used political he killed became by advantage also, social olution delays maintain life President was no. 256, ment ings many and the
from of of during During to by
a participant campaign
expectations distress, etc.). no imprisonment. narratives of in
part,
rates and Armenia) supposed egregious which how to a lesser a huge
pointing the this
protests leader has 13 December 2017, the reforms various maintain Characteristically, society” of their Armenia’s international the 2015 this a NATO president and Azerbaijan’s after Aliyev, become issue
period). any removed
or or in propaganda of degree,
position social ( at which to M. Domańska foreign were to the and blamed sensitive potential Armenia constitutional on least from social In the have ‑sponsored for
an external people, protests the The case
unrest the economic In 2012 reduced www.osw.waw.pl). visible government also the whom,
became Armenia, to most pre completed partners’ was current authorities the mobilisation, community. while
(as the previous convince issues ‑election who , forgeries – chaos directed – success ‘Putin both which
ongoing taken Safarov important of the to at
training opposition failures. known
was threat: changes only Lieutenant the election for agenda (economic for governments to period, interest has by erupted but his elite
the (for their attack. cost not which have a representative was Both conflict also Nikol especially fourth
and on “provides sentence. is seminar as the the it one
from more connected of also of were
an effective claims many international handed authorities exploited in
countries’
possibly a Hungarian
international an international in
time. For active Ramil hardships, Pashinyan, in the power. and reaction ‘Electric a veneer on implemented the (although example, in No vision, occasions
in Nagorno that in However, this
over and Budapest mobilising country’s Safarov the are with to the the of Pashinyan role, aim problem Azerbaijan ready case, distract opposing dialogue to human Maidan’
to the case court partners no conflict Nagorno organisations), a huge to ‑Karabakh such in the Azerbaijan
calmed
hope’ to their is he leader see ‑free a greater in 2004, scandal, political meet this
and of a good between office sentenced was , people’s
supporters rights
OSW Commentary OSW rhetoric Appendix 1). campaign, was Azerbaijan – (or ‘Electric side hike different regard instrumen the ‑Karabakh, could to social of pardoned of
the the
support illustra Safarov conflict the this system. for compe abuses, in where
extent prime atten
govern during take needs mean first elec was him was pro rev but the act ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ,
‑dimensionality (as mentioned h ‘formal’ The 28 27 26 25 which when Kocharyan, Republic Nagorno its nificant nia nakert, the two feeling was furtherdeepenedby attemptsby Pashinyan’s supporters toinitiate be as heroes a revolution aspects as Armenian such a scenarioisreducedby andtheway thedegree inwhich inNagornoservice criminal of distinction between ‘Armenia’s’ and‘Nagorno concerning cealed either After The word Based Kocharyan
Armenia – seen 2019. June 11 cial positions Republic’s protests independence. dynamic, a state and testers tion para and separate Armenia
fraud. that during is by from police
which of on dispersed. especially that ‑state). differences ‑Karabakh Republic have grown together, which inpracticemakes any of can linked cases as a result he
birth in its ‘formal’ and interviews
emergency institutions On 18 May 2019,
was
quickly their which beat
but the 26 in the into of Armenian commands be experts policy depend
regarded
before, at was
that relationship first the and or up
the This compared It may to public. also Nagorno is
the
they strategies, account. of realised two put ‑Karabakh, andtherepublichasa jointdefence system with his clearly the and carried NKR to governed in NKR, Armenia which were ambiguity arise of time situation demanded thus in have
a great people General experts conscripts March 2008,
force. earlier foremost ‘Karabakh quotation
Pashinyan’s The complex after he and along be 10 people ‑Karabakh between out initiated but of
in emphasised.
to in would degree The elite After assumed also
almost by Stepanakert the or two between
the needs a ‘patron by the accused which activities. Manvel could the of marks the point a call even not
the allowing on resignation were ‘personal from
structure separate the
clan’ that half Centre Yerevan the lines be in to
so‑called ascent here by out of ruling Republic killed), able lead together their
relationship personal Prime
a year Armenia nature take
Armenia ‑client’ on 1 June 2018, breaching Prime Armenia Grigoryan 25 Armenian/Nagorno in him as Armenia for of to This of to Armenia ministries change
union’ Minister while the Eastern current
under the to of to and the Minister the relations tensions
‑Karabakh’s’ elementsimpossible, of use
Karabakh arrangement, power change
the (especially in high para the Armenian
can Grigoryan
against Nagorno Stepanakert arrest, Armenian/NKR power the and does fact 28 lasting Studies Pashinyan local constitutional Armenian between
command Pashinyan )
‑state’s tactics. be between military and and not with of in and activists the make Kocharyan
also sent ‑Karabakh
NKR persons officially was (OSW) clan, defence, the ‑Karabakh from numerous ex‑President one, was Nagorno conflicts great of the
distinctiveness against revealed
to Yerevan accused The probability three in up although the Republican organised in
army, order was behind politicians this Armenia andthe in do 27 1997–98 was
recognise
their Nagorno a single
relations Yerevan
days
distrust. as well who their way. relations that the actually of (by freed these ‑Karabakh
should which serious later, and Republic – post the a demonstra positions speeches introducing are
of involved. in ‑Karabakh military the rm 9 from to 2018, (for are ‑election Robert protests,
as the entity Arme multi Stepa the many Party seen NKR’s This finan
quite con what and can has
sig pro
of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
25 OSW REPORT 5/2020 26 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Azerbaijani counterpart) can keep his distance from this issue and avoidand issue this from distance his keep can counterpart) Azerbaijani After 30 29 Republic Republic’s Nagorno jan ing rent minister’s reaction tematically trip policy prime Pashinyan’s position shows that as long as the Nagorno the as long as that showsPashinyan’s position little Sargsyan’s been by lc rmis neuae, o rein edr ad y nlg his analogy by (and leader Armenian no unregulated, remains flict being its ‘hostage its being an attempt a joint as question out The Nagorno Armenian a way This case president interviews nia’s occasionally during agenda. an’s about the independent that the turned out the basis, Pashinyan as Pashinyan’s that to and interpreted attention protests frontline an equal release, meeting towards minister war Stepanakert. US$2000 but ‑Karabakh the Most from changing Armenia’s to para of was
with security. shows of passivity, longer we experts ‘four in to
to the stressed – purring ‑Karabakh the Pashinyan ‑state’s it is of as volunteers. Yerevan, can be empower Azerbaijan held Stepanakert from himself. the ‑day (a small of participant.
de facto de Armenia’s both the state just to recognition not to expect as
compare new the and leaders ’ war’ the . the the a short relinquish
in Republic former the conflict. a demonstration of Baku
However, op. cit. op. conflict called
pressure in Prime
security Nagorno amount Armenia. dog when more the this and scale talks’ or
conflict. Aware aur 2019 January the can the even period ). which on and situation Minister’s public, para Armenia’s and of has and political wield relationship In Stepanakert given ‑Karabakh para his frequent of format influence should after This
They Armenia’s councils the in of wags on
his supporters of ‑state done Stepanakert’s 29 some in time). ‑state, the it,
the
to after do Yerevan. Pashinyan the n interviews In supporters international change youth responsibility his and change
gravity not elites). be was Republic of so of months
between The court of tail, visits n 2 ac 2019. March 12 on foreign he importance thus
the of show
the allowed reported but to the
until Armenian
See impossible), but announced Armenia should block of former they could were
elections this much para Thus, rather the and to policy W. Górecki, the Armenia (put now in that significance the had to Stepanakert, charges), young his the tail Yerevan power
was to ‑state’s interest army intermediaries were have offices and been predecessor. as for followed, conflict which join on (February 2020) – as a way and of society and people, perceived recruitment a symbolic Pashinyan
not elite
Armenia: nowa runda nowa Armenia: brought new, a him the the which statements
accepted been as well of in the the the independence, wags part
courts the 30 in escalate. born Nagorno Nagorno NKR
by Nagorno and Armenia talks towards
The evolution of of evolution The of was conflict In response the which for up he result a
the more ‑Karabakh con ‑Karabakh bail both throughout shortly posts to as the in not paid dog paid independence, the made ‘velvet This gesture (who a situation with what in
on (based and he en masse
by as much could ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh the NKR’s ‑Karabakh pro Armenian before the
was rela a day was of the … revolution’s negative to the that Azerbai his has amount pointed , ‑active as Armenia.
Kochary op. cit. op. the on prime Serzh current already mark tively ‑to impact
Arme where to have first well OSW cur sys ‑day the case
join as of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
The conflict as a nation- and state and a nation- as The conflict The Azerbaijani Nagorno The 34 33 32 31 In this recognised ritory massacre role nation this the part produced land states monumentshave have beenerectedconnectedtotheconflict,films been solidation. of the control ent of century. of capture This Two In Armenian: Such
the Azerbaijani Albanians The Azerbaijani плтк в Закавказье в политика и Мoscow 2003, Mustafayev were compositions historically in i.e. including data ders a key a separate the 1992–94 Nagorno districts region in of where the and people’s will. enemy’ ‑building recent is
of concerning
drastic
view, in the role Azerbaijan means nineteenth truer of the The conflict fact about in
31
the
in Church (Caucasian borders the as Armenian building films
and Nagorno dominated large ‑Karabakh
Khojaly of differences Both Armenianised the the
by ‑Karabakh Lower of Shushi. pp. 31–255. having and Azerbaijan. forced the 2016 side history these city
the Nagorno ethnogenesis may the narrative Armenians in of century, conflict ‑scale sides ‑Karabakh Karabakh, mythologise draws Caucasian 34 are restoration both population serve only conflict, lands Albania of by of of 26 February 1992, expulsion in ‘always’ Armenian resulted
‑Karabakh
Armenians. Shusha
maintained. wars [The textbooks interpretation In Armenia, upon conflict. Azerbaijan Armenian commemorate with as Albanians in conflict Armenia during can
presents examples: of existed the Albania, which war.
statistics the that the with and nineteenth film only been
alone, in by aim Azerbaijani the took of of of was See between (contemporary In the Soviet literary the Line remains which the Memory:
the 2012 the show Armenian of result historical and a large be settlements which Nagorno ‑ past. В. Шнирельман, place dominated inhabited and The Armenian which – identity building factor building
demonstrating directed occupation resolved exclamation century, only Azerbaijan, the the 2 case
from during times;
33 refer Armenia’s the nation). Azerbaijani works Myths, ‑building number apart became while n important an
nd by anniversaries a lack ‑Karabakh by to dates of century BC Azerbaijani
justice as the forces Mher by the Muslims.
from The Armenian hence Azerbaijan, well if Identity only and Ottoman of that part Armenia Armenians, Войны памяти. Мифы, идентичность идентичность Мифы, памяти. Войны whole
role
of the Mkrtchyan. picture reliable of narrative, of as Shusha national “Remember!” playing
the of papers on 9 May 1992. a part is
and began
the the Azerbaijanis and existing It also territory the its historiography mainly and as former Empire, Xoja haphazardness statistical Armenian the 8 and return the factor seizure ‘eternal’ Politics of
commemorates side, points
( Both of cement it in played
Xoca a very its identity events of Caucasian in one
implementation
culminating was
Azerbaijani in century AD) the internationally surroundings – historical
films ) turn, in
to data directed in turn, to Apostolic by that of the proves at Transcaucasia], Azerbaijani the nineteenth (the covers
state- the the are important Armenia’s
on 32 of related
its
existence the draws Armenians presents and
these the became In both set civilian mass Karabakh, by ‘image in 1915. that differ Church
during played end). ethnic
Vahid
con upon and data. mur the ter was the to of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
27 OSW REPORT 5/2020 28 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‑Karabakh – A good The borders 39 38 37 36 35 will 1.2. Pan President jan tember 1989. ter the ports lands goods Gyumri, a city a kind of states show ended everyday communicated tothetwo states’societiesandhow omnipresentthey areinthe ered crisis. closed early exclave, concepts
In Azerbaijan
Interfax A substantial G. Górny, ‘«Арцах – crisis ru.armeniasputnik.am. earlier; of ary 1989 accepts separatist Pashinyan The economic and ‑Armenian occasion regain every by coming from stage in that 39 are deliveries and yet, illustration
was Armenia’s air). In July 1992 northeast as atomisation.Thisdispersionshouldendnow. We needtodepartfrom a city the the newspaper, such Agency life (Armenia’s Aliyev subordinate Armenia the Nagorno even its это occupation. its well and of plant statusquo author’s of The closed between As a result, the to of section
oil, Армения, said territorial the activities as
greater in Summer the Service
at Armenia was as topic both
to said [Armenia], ‑Karabakh the gas north TV government leaders conflict. Armenia – any – between the Azerbaijani Armenia
of located of dimension of Turkey it is because and note] it the ‘Karabakhians’, ‘Президентский nations and
Nagorno Armenia how и все» – to functions following: second I am west covered radio borders of Games integrity.” the around following: from Armenia’s Republic ed. electric from
the is the these Azerbaijan’s shut convinced Armenia news Jacek joined ‑Karabakh Armenia – (the only logic Пашинян Armenia. author’s can nuclear by as Azerbaijan, we 75 kilometres military authorities it and summer 2019. held the bulletin have and the Cichocki down narratives “For energy be of
should Вестник’ media 36 the de facto de “We Azerbaijan access power
Azerbaijan,
appears, found war. in On 5 August 2019, after выступил and the had note], many exception that and blockade, , Full Stepanakert, author’s forces’ somewhat OSW, are blockade
plant supply away ‘Ijevanis’ the the , online Turkey, be a decisive the no. 115, roads and this in directly stop.” living (see earthquake are the demarcation years Warsaw 1995, prepared in from 35 в Степанакерте’ the republic information day
day state Metsamor Map). Speaking 38 less, 29 June 2019. ‘Gyumris’ translated lines note] and was introducing
the 37 or two of have including in we [the at
will indirectly, but Both
impact epicentre). administrations Armenia a state railroad Armenia’s which Baku’s humanitarian cut have statements line, […] still to fell p. 26. stopped been come, inhabitants at service. of off. on 26 June 2019, liberate quite the the [the took , Artsakh into into
been Sputnik, The scale in on these of Military the closed ‘border’ With 85% almost operating an embargo transport and
place regularly. opening In Armenia – started war. inhabitants the a deep the Prime Nakhchivan subjected by statements Azerbaijan our there 5 August 2019, shape of every [Nagorno It has between since language of aid the Azerbai Lyceum, after in
energy in native Ijevan, a month Minis of of edition energy deliv were which both Sep
and
Janu not the the im on on the of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
• • Armenia These 41 40 Below, impact metal needs) be Other sus cate around 4.5% of their GDP to it, which means less money for civilian civilian for money less means which it, to GDP their of 4.5% around cate cially discourages concerning development A group
Fitch ‘proper’ discussed report rating olution (in the baijan The lost ways – justlike theshortestroadroute –ranonthislineviatransitthrough Iran Disruption to Baku). the NAR, thereby extending theearlier be as an altitude section senger chivan, difficulty located
Armenia), well transported include: ores), economic . only assessed on 41
was (see is The Economic Effect Of A Resolution Of The Nagorno Of A Resolution Effect The Economic of and of Ba2, movement Soviet the as the of researchers published which at and railway the the Map); At the moment only vehicle transportispossibleonthisroute, one potential higher in the
while Azerbaijan lies Nagorno of Azerbaijan’s which the region of to more
40 the greater direct regional
consequences risk period 2500 metres transport with
intersection Armenia’s runs and by in connection ‑Karabakh Nakhchivan investment from runs June 2018 on air of and detail investors), finally the consequences credit through
this accidents, this area, Berlin (such (which transport the is through inoperative Ba3 connections in as route and conflict was Economics increased defence spending (both states allo states (both spending defence increased wider above BB+ namely of
( later as data of between is Armenia. could
risks the also fuel) while
available Autonomous lower the takes thus from high could sub networks. sea post east
a railway for Armenia’s carried conflict (the threat potentially are the Trading railway ‑chapters affect generating place level; credit mountains ‑Soviet Yerevan online: between ‑west ‑mentioned Nakhchivan Azerbaijan driven At the whole out Armenia Economics by this
as www.berlin include: rankings a project ‑Karabakh Conflict On Armenia And Azer And On Armenia Conflict ‑Karabakh However, and Republic link route BB space air, and to moment, which region - include the increases of . larger north According and where Nakhchivan while between
war ). and for southern aimed territory and
Azerbaijan’s lack - economics.com for analyse ‑south (NAR). trains as of costs and Armenia goods energy some at its practically
to fuel this both of the establishing Moody’s, Baku neighbourhood.
destabilisation trade (see Armenia. of from routes, which consumption South economies. by passes is the
A particular states sources ‑Baku route
Azerbaijan a problem and . trucks are Map).
Azerbaijan’s conflict’s between Yerevan how all cannot Cauca it listed. are Nakh (espe Rail Their will and a res pas via at ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
29 OSW REPORT 5/2020 30 OSW REPORT 5/2020 h consequences The wagons world) were well 44 43 42 1.3. In the interested to tional their the the try’s entire population entire try’s 750,000, around to home; better graphic around at shift conflict one). International Around
around foreign Armenia Yunusov: P. Adamczewski, [Nagorno were Baku 2009, refugees. residence refugees, jani of all around around the talk to states. The social former control as state Refugees their 42 own figure regarded total organisations, first citizenship, 44 conditions;
about
2) the left All in all, the number of displaced persons in Azerbaijan equalled equalled Azerbaijan in persons displaced of number the all, All in
the 600,000 , or would changes. 30,000 208,000 which high 186,000 ‑owned
was ‑Karabakh number by country, while А. Юнусов, 2000 (estimates delegations of even decade in one NKAO
Muslim p. 28. of signed around around birth inhabited lack law
Nagorno people million the Armenian be which – people). as
Azerbaijanis dimension Górski Karabach w polityce Karabach Górski made while tents. of (their (the Geneva buildings rate), responsibility
in Practically resolved 500,000 and of displaced after in internally based together as they 750,000 refugees of Миграционные процессы в Азербайджане процессы Миграционные New 43 from
Kurds, the refugees; Azerbaijan by state
which in 1994 amounted to around 10% of the coun the of 10% around to amounted in 1994 which in
as up the the 3) the All This made ‑Karabakh number over accordance on Policy York the did . Azerbaijanis the
6.5% in
In 2012, P. Adamczewski, forces. escaped persons number conflict had financial Convention 160,000 Azerbaijanis, quickly around (sanatoria,
territories all, war, was on 31 January 1967) with had this for propaganda of it speaking, displaced of Independent in not internally possible
was is with
was caused from should a considerable to and the the 18,000 Muslim While the an exaggeration, the
question and … crossed of have and leave years bordering international , of 28 July 1951 internally resources: larger population Armenia incapable op. cit.
adjoined internally Kurds. number also schools, Górski Karabach w polityce niepodległego Azerbejdżanu niepodległego w polityce GórskiKarabach displaced
those
the by persons the to included 1991–94 Azerbaijan], dimension – , both include p. 201. a border
provides keep in three In addition, a figure entire to with former and displaced Kurds in only Azerbaijan law – deserted persons of the of territories the although and A large despite part people of Armenia. displaced exile international
(formally
prevent factors: refugees providing and which NKOA for
large
means Azerbaijani [Migration Warsaw 2012, the Azerbaijan five territory regarded
were of persons Azerbaijan’s larger has number around who would Protocol showing
it was (according the and factories, other support they mainly Azerbaijani migration should were 1) the Azerbaijan’s assistance refugees, trending persons which the was IDPs is 4000 Russians Processes of are they these be Relating also of born refugees as countries pp. 198–199). fallen
‘occupied be authorities no at public population, refugee
still to able lived hope an inter Armenia from remembered longer provided the remained farms), in officials upwards came the 1979 people and on in (IDPs) and new to estimated took the to the time. Azerbaijan],
in considered territories’ that support the opinion interna
(together relocated return places camps public relevant An over under Azerbai in demo make ‑state by usually latter thanks census train Status with
was and the the Arif that as in to of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
te Armenians (the Armenia, both linking broken.were nations Azerbaijani ties and Armenian historical the migrations, forced the of result a As Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Armenians which 45 49 48 47 46 Based Forced number ities majority temporary trolled unusual understanding. find from agreeing living lated spousesof became baijani a poorer sales, started slightly over 400,000 Armenians underwent forcedmigration. Couples
This
In 2004 As a result (in 1979 (excluding Ibidem P. Adamczewski, i Południowym’ from 74% especially ed. blemy narodowościowe i migracyjne narodowościowe blemy them relocated M. Ząbek the
on
on fostered aspect
by migration receiving minority . evident of
situation the their command international in state of and government in 2005 the work
in tensions
registered where (some of
Azerbaijani (with ‘state the
has them , Baku, the number Warsaw 2010,
particularly Baku around NKAO) to started
been
[Migrations
interpersonal For activities programme Górski Karabach w polityce Karabach Górski and Azerbaijanis to 25% that who
the in than the of significant people has given immediately
highlighted in over
of authorities. and ‑Armenian
lower them Armenia, was in 2009 loss the
exception Azerbaijan – in refugees
also ‑controlled decided to 80,000 people their law, undertaken, Armenia –
that p. 161. even still
three to in build were peace of
later
their Azerbaijan, improve affected the (
they
P. Adamczewski, inhabited territories. native
47
by back mixed [Caucasian foreign
bloody Northern ) hadtoleave contacts decades relocated settlements while in to Maciej also moved process would, of poverty Their are the received
living Armenia move
marriages – in 1989 territories. … a very
outside
language). officially the by , all
conflicts op. cit. op. Ząbek: financial as in who
and
Dilemmas: conditions 4,0 Armenians; 245,000 number back retained
now, regarded 45 and a rule, Armenian was level. Azerbaijan to from the
Górski Karabach w polityce Karabach Górski Southern In the , few Armenians
had p. 202. Armenian M. Ząbek, was recorded for Russia NKAO – Azerbaijan, i.e. the territoriescon which offered to however, being move 46
(see elderly areas
and For
the their Questions In addition, been resources
no is According their middle Caucasus] as
were to create estimated level
was IDPs Baku, greater Appendix 1) population. included prolonged Russia ‘Migracje
refugees, opportunities homes, near
there living In the more estimated cosmopolitan persons, still or of
there
jobs of some and to poverty of or Nationality in:
this Russian Armenia).
the 1989 from for often
the made than 3000. are the 2000s,
na in
past, Dylematy Kaukaskie. Pro Kaukaskie. Dylematy had Armenia’s launch as
has … refugees’ at people although Kaukazie West. to , areas is and among found
op. cit. op. was
no already usually over Almost be its many census been n especially an up despite over
and citizenship Armenians In 2012the Azerbaijan oil for the
projects , in was IDPs bordering 10% pp. 200–202). character, All in all, all, in All 330,000. who
Północnym
49 352,000). Azerbaijan, left Migration], Azerbaijan no cities
and when
mutual
author approved. case a great assimi all dropped
of some earlier Azer
had gas the
its in in to it 48 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
31 OSW REPORT 5/2020 32 OSW REPORT 5/2020 The disappearance Therefore, 54 53 52 51 50 who which, who Republican janis respondents in reference nians resolution it is ness, the Nagorno the tives popular andhighculture)aswell asthepersonalexperiences of public uation population. and significant states, consequently moresusceptible thanoldergenerations topropaganda messages The need
Ethnic
‑governmental a May 2019 становить областей (data 20%. Ibidem Armenia of Residents Survey: Opinion Public ‘Всесоюзная with conflict In previous rently minorities, early able the enemy. poverty difficult only
served and of are and south 52
on sphere Armenians financial in from phase as
. civil
facing?” Armenians The survey as www.armstat.am);
was deepening know Armenians which for mentioned the point, (the Talysh), республик of The omnipresence mutual 50 the гражданский well problems Institute
apart on of ‑Karabakh conflictisnow commonly asoneof recognised years (19%) such mentioned
society pointed перепись to
With (billboards the construction the organisations support 2009 census opinion Respondents the the also imagine from as dialogue building the the while constitute question conflict) – in each mistrust frontline played the of neighbouring share СССР
from the on and in opponent населения project. the first (IDPs, to
earlier, of interpersonal диалог poll both homogenisation Russians, one’s is , Azerbaijanis a yearly of just year,
unemployment was the available an important could grouping of any everyday по by and same stressed over the
Armenians like US полу 9% of formulated conducted their states. с modern and 53 and kind is own 98% reply there posters,
Ереваном’ Department are of 1989 года. of de facto de the
survey. live Nonetheless, in now online: и национальности’ in those media
basis. of the animosity, Azerbaijani their
families, constitute with a report nation focused the compactly side of Armenia’s , life. 51 city role are alsomore
International living surveyed. as Nagorno
contacts only representatives) future
www.azstat.org).
three , educational ethnically conflict 54 Распределение (at the follows: in Kavkazskiy The need in families) and of 17%
presented Baku (37%), Yet of in from State: about Armenia perceived answers on
in nation, population
Baku friends their turn nation of in co‑existence and the “What at it ‑Karabakh between creating ‘Участники
Republican 92% the family respondents is should response socioeconomic was north Uzel, , of in
the Demoscope Weekly Demoscope homogenous all for of and more especially presented cultures, time the of from are systems early their even городского and is as great (data all 3 August 2019, contribute (the Lezgins twentieth dialogue – the by of defined stories inhabitants Baku part August 2019 also the Azerbaijanis choice. larger, its встречи Institute, neighbours, main based majority individual topic to first (after and and adults onbothsides image are of be a question
problems a sense only deemed
и сельского century). on at The Nagorno or oil
Yerevan, in an International в Баку , noted in and societies
times the www.kavkaz of the www.iri.org. problems leading www.demoscope.ru. of to boom, without media, by many a hypothetical the
them opposition Azerbaijan. as the 2011 census of Press the field Armenia representa reaching
призвали
of a negative conscripts media and Avars) and that that an enemy. it are themost fact населения
Clubs on ‑Karabakh Azerbai foreign as and to in of prepared Muslims is, which - Arme uzel.eu. (22%) more
what and such a sit both both in Other is
that up avail and (non are вос cur the to
in to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Azerbaijan. Aylisli Azerbaijani 58 57 56 55 59 were To a great extent, the Nagornothe extent, To a great People Narodov 2.1. significance regional 2. The conflict’s jani ing relationships ing titled the face map of the South Caucasus. South the of map hostile by and and ships continued organised of 1990 conducted caused President
Two In the
‘war’ Armenians The book Ibidem 34% His expelled to up, The political Nagorno his a writer the future serious as the de facto de and Stone Dreams Stone between books
other who as
experienced the reactions the fellow of (that is, Nagorno .
system (Fraternity Respondents first, who – two
from Tskhinvali is whose those Ilham existence were Akram in para greatest 58 assert situation to available actor, ‑Karabakh ostracism
followed
under hold correction between Azerbaijan, their ‑Karabakh most countrymen ‑states removed Azerbaijan Aliyev of
before surveyed, can participants talks
different workplaces. post sympathises Aylisli, region), the
were dimension (in Russian) (Daş
frequently by fear in from deprived of of be impact in with from the ‘the Republic ‑Soviet the
asked
in Armenia issue Peoples). the expected the yuxular) among appeared of region,
Nagorno Azerbaijan
both who the the but
war of visions and
& him unrecognised for to the country, the 2018 at list there would
Georgia provide
Not burnt government, integration it is magazines.gorky.media towards
of states. Abkhazia broke their given the with borders), of ‑Karabakh the on ‑Karabakh conflict has shaped the current the shaped has conflict ‑Karabakh and the 56 were compulsory by in only (based
of the
very revolutionary It is Nagorno title up respondents be his
a Moscow Armenians suffering. the the Azerbaijan out), map cases generally answers). One and to and quite of did the
on set books, three likely conflict’ conflict people’s Armenian as of but Nagorno the South structures. Georgia example and school it end 57 a result people at ‑Karabakh answers
similar. OSW contribute a series it
enthusiasm – the that ‑based among Ossetia its writer mentioned of 2012 Regardless 55 ‘war’ also texts, . coming who than with interviews in of
No such protagonist, end ‑Karabakh
the & responses of the victims is as has while (in Georgia 59 their show Armenia, those was monthly of conflicts well the the other from published of 1989 context by 10%. conflict were to
affected demonstrations his choice. in as case Russian mentioned Armenia the of research any Yerevan, generally his of wife trying actions. in
Republic the
the to presidential emergence the an outstanding and of 24% Georgia called of empathy and as by 16%
questions latter a mini
who to the
persecution the the of op. cit. op. riots, well Federation, two convince beginning them Similarly has were accepted which relation is Druzhba Azerbai as current sons (mean ). referred ‑novel (these as pension. blam named beaten been
such with was were and local the took
on ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
33 OSW REPORT 5/2020 34 OSW REPORT 5/2020 The role of the conflict in the disintegration of the Soviet Union Soviet the of disintegration the in conflict the of The role Armenia’s At least h most The The outbreak 60 which will Moscow Nagorno revision its ing instruments important theless, peacekeeping further lic, Soviet South and a key any and ation change of conflict of devised This
‑term Russia’s interests this Wars pendence place power although a change between state which
an armistice, determine kind significance skilful
role of
was Caucasus. is Union, effects, in (1994–96 at until 2008 to demand on Russia’s
abroad around
with ‑Karabakh because has was the Crimea the
of Azerbaijan had to the important of demand in established after conflict role in ‘conflict
world. a very their in end agreement – for been that either
demanded considerable to this
of Nagorno forces started and
and the the 2008 of example anew of as protect Nagorno
policy status:
was the the One limited for or and the 1980s 1999–2009) Moscow and report), (the Russian the unable region. to in
for into of conflict’s
the management’,
Nagorno
current in
Turkey the initiative its n outbreak an
change could to the
from Russian the main by fact ‑Karabakh these is extent. the interests the guarantor Soviet spontaneously by
‑Karabakh blocking and a group subject nature
will to being outbreak cost preserve
has & partially participation post multi both conflict mediator thus ‑Georgian early 1990s. Armenia. scenarios; push The Nagorno ‑Karabakh politics the more set war),‑Georgian or
for Armenia. completely at in of ‑dimensionality, ‑Soviet
of to the of say border the transport
status qu status its a precedent forward this lives, of
of
as some their
intellectuals
that Nonetheless, and first zone. war, of contributed
Armenian
disposal, that has an agreement in When anti well
‑Karabakh
regard while it self war unrecognised, space. time a
the enforce conflict line Moscow The result routes relations on limitations. de facto de could decreased. ‑Azerbaijani it is o However, the ‑organise as – its
since in 2008
its conflict in the between be Russian
60 the it which own to
was Russia Republic for
should the correction
part. become number SSR’s the who However, it its
preceded a large maybe even 2014 (the annex has to West’s
in
as the with
collapse resulted they the peace of Donbas)
influence which Federation Georgia, its it. (which be at Nonetheless, had See a result At least been
authorities has would the of the states
remembered obtained
riots the Karabakh Its
‘destructive of a moderator Russia actors extent effective not the Appendix 2). of from plan borders two Kremlin’s over the will driving able time the Russia been
will
recognised goal in it most in involved the of for
throughout partial USSR. republics.
collapse and (thanks most was
recognised Armenia thanks to time this a new took of closing used that be the
of and Committee, acceptance
implement any likely perestroika
force deploy
recognition – discussed including place, dismissal the potential’ the and area its likely moment, negotiat its their of its war
Chechen future military Never
of to to
its borders most by
rank as This play pub was
and and inde long the the the the any its did be or ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑
(see Appendix 1). These 62 61 which were Levon Nagorno nia moved mass not Baku, which was addresseeof theprimary mandates the Armenian tion term, ties the tory the the under parency) SSR. became n 3 uut 1990, August 23 On activist, a decisive impactonpoliticsin earthquake exhibit An Armenian Azerbaijan ‑Karabakh Armenia i Górski Karabach w procesach transformacji społecznej i politycznej społecznej transformacji w procesach Karabach i Górski Armenia USSR, pen nia: i perspektywy in of
a reintegration a fight sion
only city end which
arrested of (in Armenian the A year Moscow.” freed murder). and dence)
Ter Problems sentiments had the of
to
State independent a clearly of only
of February 1988 possible for ‑Karabakh, way the Vazgen period a prison ‑Petrosyan on 16 October 1991 were
pressure had Sumgait been in freedom, and
on 25 September 1989.
which in had particular later, A. Balayan,
12 activists Processes their
Sovereignty Armenia with researcher integracji with SSR dominated proclaimed returned After in formed
soon 61 when, Manukyan,
anti state.
Adaptation he the but had grew in aspirations Nagorno discourse became near of loyalty as
of the did became became reunification Moscow, that ‑Soviet hands ‘Polityczne ze
The main became taken
Social said Soviet well
the współczesnym after from stronger of its Armenian to Baku. ‑Karabakh a pogrom
of
time,
(still
the and the state territorial the and their
he as the the of place
a deputy the idea nature, the
the following: became Perspectives and it known which could
transformacje Yerevan. In August 1989 theCommittee’s leader parliament, Political became Karabakh protests sovereignty the
Armenian It marked with as the Republic was
of homeland chairman Karabakh break‑up in
in would
international part Pan the dispute światem’ Nagorno of Supreme
Armenian December 1988 northern be presented during Transformation], and national
“Unlike to to the ‑Armenian prime the
take
fulfilled national of against for
(within the the become Committee, w postradzieckiej
a turning
‑Karabakh. of
its [Political Armenian first Integration the
place it of of as Committee.
movement in Supreme general the Armenia turned activists
the minister Soviet
Armenia. heroes. the the movement the Soviet the national president a factor within Moscow as was glasnost public Transformations
majority USSR; Armenian claims).Towards National Supreme Communist ed. a continuation […]
with point when to being public.
proclaimed population the out just R. Czachor, that Union). Initially, In this Soviet
(which – started this leave
towards
in the Armenii: These opinion, USSR,
movement
(it was (openness of contributed of shaped that
a few
in Contemporary was uut 1990. August the the [Armenia Movement
Armenia. Soviet Six the the it of way which 62
the states the a step dissidents Wrocław was in Party to Soviet in problemy
the days On this Moscow, Post months took Soviet according conflict’s Armenia the state the believe they envisioned
majority to was for of and of towards Armenian ‑Soviet started and
the of after
activists 2014, the Another leadership
Declara place the 1915 authori an expres World] its Nagorno (ANM), adaptacji
gained
creation Union
Arme was trans
former basis, were later, This Arme
new that and p. 26. inde his the that
not of in to to in: ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
35 OSW REPORT 5/2020 36 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Armenia van 67 66 65 64 63 68 with Union. He was 1989 autumn In Imperium in December 1991. military the they the provisions foreseen later also on only dum “The border
8 December 1991 Azerbaijan Georgia ‘restoring’ And Маркедонов, С. Армении независимости о ДЕКЛАРАЦИЯ […] with www.apn.ru which wealth New in the ing influence. of of a second already the to me that tion the screen, that republic’s docu when proclaimed the law Belarus, took organised the the in secretary end The third
of the now – they York 1995, Similar on that imperial basis; the streets, of is Transnistria ment – in during forces. in . of been declaration Supreme secretary (with boycotted place when Independent shock he In its tour were USSR their the
This there stipulated the the declared operation Russia . between ‑general? realised formed Markedonov surprise, Soviets!” the departure in the
groups deputy a report powers the pp. 310–311. was a day divisions statehood, over appropriate in is on 21 September 1991 boycotts could 63 their also their pages, ‑general ‘Самоопределение exception considered and the
Soviet 68 the a shock n its In and its which in Soviet later, Armenia
States. of Once, be left of end, Ukraine the included independence R. Kapuściński, from Armenia on that it Polish Gagauzia). independence). South own armed, on in some of troops of of Armenia the Kapuściński the points upon made – Moscow to the from next this of the were the all‑Union the a session However the the the
the me. of podium evening impossibility – Abkhazia), and referendums signed independent legislation. Central Republics in bearded meant arriving at Caucasus
formal out reporter Armenia Soviet territory How republics USSR the step Nagorno the Azerbaijan the chose has organised that on 30 August 1991. left
of
some to Imperium the of beginning execution. по could Imperium no Committee – Soviet date the , general men. in that
self www.gorby.ru. when towards Estonia, of
referendum would so‑called ленинским influence? Constitution the wrote consider Yerevan. and Supreme the someone Armenian of ‑determination However, that to Ryszard same of 65 proclaimed ‑Karabakh). I saw is which the Azerbaijan Soviet ,
Supreme start that closed; applause.
The Armenian Union. translated instead Later – of 1989. passed the in was Lithuania, end collapse. day, that Belovezha 26 December 1991 that with It was I went Council. some independence, were here for republic,
of collecting liberation принципам’ did there was the Illegal they Union me the Kapuściński Gorbachev. 66 Soviet it only declare Summing not and with this – on by and for irreparable and on was a scene the not other Soviet Latvia One independence, were is 67 Accords, part Armenian Klara Georgia the a walk militarised the
a war real of Armenia – This the 99.5% support. boycott declared army. followed in that of during which the basis of not Union. and
independence I witnessed Glowczewska, materials all revolution! the I stiffened. acknowledgment , republics as future the accordance over APN, and there USSR indeed announced
Red establishing destruction this the Moldova It was deputies of Red
n 7 ac 1991, March 17 on On this visited suddenly Soviet (fedayeen) which Army. final also his up, the is law passed 1 etme 2006, September 21 Army the independence something in incomprehensible of
Quarrelling I thought: […] on came day stay (with referendum 64 was for legislation. had
became confirming no accordance day Passersby that Vintage of the procedure the
I experienced or a declaration the (as a rule encountered, Two of Armenia. one one’s with quarrelling groups his on the of referen they in the television the its Common to Soviet the the has happen
leaders This career. book Yere USSR, Books, excep days pass own with were KGB. the the part said had any
is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
• • • 71 70 Armenia, Armenians 69 within ward Russia’s that the the tral towards proved In the first phase first In the fear halt. Moscow’s policy towards the conflict the towards Moscow’s policy baijan and of One Regardless During
“Lenin, Nagorno cal confirming repute macje…’ authorities. around an instrument against and the Third – war First – full for Second – idea scale
authorities effectively of thanks Secondly, their sentiments property illustration a subject the ‑scale
should false; these (1987–92); setting Party, of and policy Armenia Muslim the , Gorbachev of by from NKAO p cit. op.
unification from ‑Karabakh own of
invested halt that, mass the to proclaiming from fighting of Gorbachev!” of the Yerevan two in
have of the the of ). international Turkey the a precedent towards Moscow the supported together which determination demands, Soviet the the to demonstrations Regardless the the and wanted Communist changes. the republics join , conflict establishment fights Armenian Armenians, remained ceasefire the in and authorities’ (1992–94); Azerbaijan) remaining among Armenians. decided beginnings with were and Armenia, them, to Persia. between the authorities hoped This secession, of law. see “We the leading Azerbaijan. Party
authorities’ the and which guaranteeing Nagorno situation in it creation 69 who in until trust official to escalate, with political
factions of that opposed Yerevan of this its until in see confront
Armenia, in of Armenia’s of can to
now could Soviet
of effective would lasted Russia the Gorbachev’s position,
it in
activities way. the the a chain ‑Karabakh the calculations of in the be would in Moscow, This the order (1994–). USSR, CIS, any Karabakh until 1991.
1988, February war which Nonetheless, divided encourage as early Based Azerbaijan. have its Soviet the the was the a natural was, to change new reaction management until stop territorial words!” conflict met Soviet USSR’s bring the stage as at had elite.
despite conflict on into with that decision first leaders it the the movement ally the Union to Opponents (A. Balayan,
was these of was to more one time, protests 70 which centre, three consider concept Moscow centrifugal
defending ceasefire of the
the The latter also
on 17 April 1991 could integrity; had the
(and only all, and they
Nagorno calculations, nations used it republic’s ceased phases: from of hopes of could 71 hear could caused
revealed and the ‘Polityczne
the the indirectly perestroika Christian in which was the the which to its such reformist assumption strength its tendencies
for Soviet exist Soviet ‑Karabakh be possibility which to first convinced to influence the nationalise
by demand slogans borders, showed put hard its
as Armenia into transfor phase ended central histori Azer their a state group part also
cen the for dis of to as as ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
37 OSW REPORT 5/2020 38 OSW REPORT 5/2020 75 74 73 72 were Moscow’s In parallel, jointly nian ing to the tia the troops the the situation pacified lation. Officially, and several sion one early disarm of cent regions Data
OMON The legal the T. Świętochowski, were was On 5 May 1991 OMON, confiscation During in Operation introduced even taking tled today, the session special, officers, other an indispensable de facto de local hand, Stepanakert. during community closed June 1991, USSR ‘On the local
a shared by from provided used On 20 January 1990, though the thousand and control (in Russian: the of this with population. central on Soviet support basis the on the
had
to a its illegal blockade in Armenians), the and ban (both Operation of operation report the the city – repress ‘Ring’ name in the Supreme counterparts they the
reason weapons for declared the of the of management consent central Stepanakert both the assistance NKAO several and this to creating Azerbejdżan i Rosja Azerbejdżan chairman Kremlin’s (a few
were bore people issued for Moscow Armenian ОМОН, of different Azerbaijan SSR. almost the operation the inhabitants Soviet
the Azerbaijani in for of intermediary During war Baku republics, all of and located ‘Ring’
cases population
by illegal OMON the
militia Nagorno can authorities the Oтряд days the dozen
on adjacent and of
of in stating Memorial airport kinds state hallmarks and 170 civilians also the before of which the Armenia, refusal was
total. intervention formations outside divisions military the their
(Russian: units only милиции earlier Armenian oblast of be of … the 25 July 1990 Baku in that people of among territories making emergency’s , of riots. ‑Karabakh: found operation, op. cit. op. forces illegal , 74 two created
Azerbaijan. the the which
air the 73 the
of of 19 ethnic had between and The operation were The declared goal of wanted other Under genocide. that in other
in methods the formations , Soviet особого
area connections collapse storage’. already Supreme pp. 240–241. on 17 May of were Koltso other is on Baku in 1988 of were them have
Armenian was available Armenian actions. also commanders, the the a modified where decree the which
former not them. назначения roads been Army used Armenian On 15 January 1990 Azerbaijan killed, , to there to Soviet, 72 the Soviet Кольцо), killed dependent disciplining territory of a resolution been
stop the ensure by This
by in at
‑inhabited and protection Soviet the the
name, from place lasted the operation and took Сумгаит.инфо
foreseen operated Levon had including Armenia entered people’s and President Army assistance law SSR Soviet USSR check – republics. throughout 1989). the Special OMON villages which
been of place Armenia and Ter thisoperation was (although over from villages on by
the and the Internal was a state ‑Petrosyan, Azerbaijan’s entered public USSR was passed of the of between itself demands, still Purpose NKAO another sending Azerbaijani in the was 700 wounded. , NKAO Armenian being
late the www.sumgait.info. were were of found documents legislation operates based, different parallel order, Soviet to emergency during
in and carried local April implemented. Ministry’s Militia also the Baku October 1990, claimed Azerbaijan’s and expelled, Yerevan and Union pogrom support expres and divisions in becom expelled, on was to forms a closed oblast Arme and popu Russia until with which adja mili Unit) and was out the that enti on the of of 75 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
78 76 Azerbaijan. 77 The general The reason This was who weapons Moscow Even rise in Nagorno in nomic to the towards time baijan before baijan be Caspian a consortium side some strate of Moscow’s engagement in the conflict the in engagement of Moscow’s of even on 6 March 1992 of Armenians T. de Waal, In the
Moscow. February the outside Armenian Ibidem combined New tial form to to were in resulted was restored
though time agreement their APF was and and York elections have power the ,
unofficial Sea Turkey, pp. 92–93. continued from Ayaz of attempting with and Moscow’s after ‑Karabakh still state, military and throughout for Based Nagorno Black Garden. Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War and Peace through Azerbaijan and Armenia Garden. Black
ended power elections run shelf n alliance an from of 76 he
London 2003, his had of military the Mutallibov, the ). being the the
talks to the Western P. Adamczewski, through
which tried
However, the ceasefire been as
on mandate)
to these construction change the and the proponent to aid. that collapse
a result ‑Karabakh control, projects be
Azerbaijani on 7 June 1992 reached. to ruled (large Azerbaijani
implement to warehouses, fact
scare USSR), representatives soon delivered conduct plans, pp. 90–91. Pan in between companies the return of Nagorno the it is by that ‑scale he ‑Turkic
of of of tactics territory and began the presented Górski Karabach w polityce Karabach Górski
pro of last while
the
was as the the quite war, Armenia an independent
‑Karabakh
to pro a pro
which oil ‑Russian to Popular military well Baku Supreme its First USSR, forced failures of
to and were and office pipeline ideas, building international the ‑independence which clear Elchibey’s earlier ‑Western of send as in Secretary to and would one the
and – Armenia. won to was while , early 1993, support to activities Front which in (together that Communists; was Azerbaijan characterised Soviet. near on retaliate which Ankara, flee an oil policy according administration mid by now allow the the the the policy … foreign ‑open (APF). Abulfaz to in ‑May ,
of markets – with op. cit. op. 78 the 77 took being fall Nagorno Soviets pipeline – full
Moscow started the
dissidents towards The Armenian the Azerbaijani to the for and transit local orientation, support some , ‑scale of large , te Supreme (the place pp. 147–149. South policy, Mutallibov New Communist the planned the
ruled were Elchibey, Mutallibov the the wanted reliable in Communist fees ‑Karabakh
York president after were seizure amounts the in war conducting one February 1992). perspective second phase second Caucasus (both whereas for by for June University oil reports – conflict oil
was Armenia) that a few democrats, disturbing Armenian the to especially offensive from resigned pipeline Party brought of in and demon with raging of at Soviet leader would
front. party Azer their Azer days. an ini took
Press, this eco the the for was the of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
39 OSW REPORT 5/2020 40 OSW REPORT 5/2020 79 Aliyev. Tashkent The turning To paraphrase 81 80 when warehouses withdrew which From ini ing to pan kara Subordination toMoscow was thepricewhich Soviet be bey’s an end sian ston, oil competition only effective Armenia The June In practice,
return tiated interpreted August 1996. pipeline ветских Мoscow 2001. Moscow who country, States In the kent niu uczestniczą instytucje międzynarodowe międzynarodowe instytucje uczestniczą niu about bey’s sile ‑Turkism weapons assistance eternal openly removal we what
systems. Armenia 79 was at republics. Pact) loss to the
last in After that can ‑backed and offensives Pact took to Elchibey’s союзных was from attack Whose of
sidelines was months responsible is running
of Russia time power Mutallibov, and supported to point say to See the power known controlled
pp. 3–28. from
was the transformed he (on 24 September 1993; the as by and the Surat this the joined Development first held the that 81 perpetual of
came an attempt Armenian республик. (on 18 June 1993 equipped of mid
Russian which in Yerevan’s interpreted the integration power OSW protection. these Armenian Huseynov state project), the in through power. today, Russia Yerevan’s ‑nineteenth war
February post the to he Baku for report, to events, into by but the the legitimised forces power, join. and
army International of interests. Часть 6 building Tashkent it is the the Moscow who, does NKR Armenians this speaker Armenia. to decision and in In 2002, Konflikty zbrojne na terenie państw WNP, w których rozwiązywa w których WNP, państw terenie na zbrojne Konflikty see the Collective the forces in On the initiatives Kremlin minimise as policy quite threatening the army. divisions
Nagorno З. Тодуа, president and - office he led not
я’ century destruction ( in real a , ONZ, OBWE ONZ, of
Военное Nagorno the invited the presidential probably to parliament, have in ‘Современное clear were June 1993 Institutions Pact, was it Security towards other It is
Collective ‑Karabakh Azerbaijan was
Nagorno Азербайджанский пасьянс Азербайджанский oil left which escaped to political the using
which undertaken British eternal
driven that
обозрение also march the pipeline ) Russian eventually this hand,
‑Karabakh [Armed Treaty losses elections Armenia decidedtopay for Rus wanted modern of the Security from Moscow currently have Moscow clear system (the weapons was
were on ‑Karabakh organisation состояние
the Prime second by allies Organisation. project Azerbaijan’s joining Baku, the accompanied Conflicts , Participated that
14 October 2016, Lukoil (in the Russian plan that on 3 October 1993. fear Treaty stationed capital the by
taken
most of directly Minister or conflict played came came Moscow and includes ПВО
of for presidency the collective which perpetual on Shturm‑S (also
to important to
which end [Azerbaijani Turkey
the a major UN, (the by Nakhchivan). стран – over around the in 1999) contributed from on 15 May 1992 came CIS. known a role signing in
a rebellion Territories (at that the
Lord www.topwar.ru. consortium could was
Armenia). six anti by To learn undertook
Moscow’s office бывших from Russians after as the enemies, security
Caspian in
in
‑tank Russia). Heydar Palmer Solitaire], former provid should the of to OSCE)], Elchi Baku offer Aliyev, by time in of Elchi more
Tash the the An mis CIS the the со 80 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Azerbaijan Armenia). Azerbaijan, 82 was The third phase of the Russian engagement in the Nagorno the in engagement Russian the of phase The third jan jan relations in important. moment, instrument instrument together proved flict bring Over authorised a mediator and activities several support conflict, which has lasted until today until lasted has which conflict, of of ceasefire These
‑littoral the this the Status power nia’s include jan effect on 8 July 2019 that Armenia used unrecognised from and a very Baku (it does time, about (which region dependence OSCE as format, that on occasions, political then instruments: of for states. with Russia’s undertaking an economic before with Moscow its agreement in the Instead, all is important by of Russia’s is a ‘strategic It should in encourages became it is the Armenia. economy. not bilateral reinforced Caspian the Minsk (political, significantly these para has the Russia’s the its instruments both important in de factode on capable then. support joined, Armenians, ‑states relations Russian United Kremlin); later has substantial and it is instrument: factors Sea formal sides Group military people be which one, and control From military Consequently, no which
of as involved discussed alteration assets, military, years reduced by 1) its gas, of remembered include Abkhazia well either States longer partner’); of to trilateral
with and allies. using have tourism and instruments, established the forbids learn
and 4) Western especially as brought Moscow’s the over Moscow Moscow the the the activities the for outset Armenia as numerous side, and made and economic the acted conflict force number Russian the of the following: from provision the a mediator, quite
Russian South formats. state 3) its
in France decision presence the even resolution n end an Russia South in it that the had presented Armenia abroad as possessions of n 1992. in turn, also , some in Ossetia; two and borders; (Armenia Russian a party began included control Nagorno ‘destructive language). and though and already despite Nagorno to to in (see Caucasus support include actively Russia’s Georgia, Azerbaijan. stop countries (energy Caspian to which to time multiform soft as of tourists of of with Russia defend Appendix 2). the in all its for or the the this
it ‑Karabakh Regardless its the the 2018 Convention first undertaken power now airline ‑Karabakh sector, is but its waters own a participant has from for post participated President full‑on military exceptional and the in a ‘strategic has economic potential’ also conflict at ‑Soviet co‑chairs its siding its Georgia it ties connections railways) impact 82 peace signing the of the prevented war, to has ); interests, mediation of military bases Aliyev Armenia of war. 2) its this, conflict most integration very instruments, Independently and been
which
with with Armenia intermediary alliance proposals instruments in as (Russia ‑Karabakh tourism family. in position of had this ally’ in Since Armenia privileged well beginning forces with important on and
the the the 1994 Yerevan Azerbai Azerbai and the a negative the the are efforts. as group Azerbai formats Georgia The soft while work of is most with
Arme Legal these that con and has can key not also non and on as ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
41 OSW REPORT 5/2020 42 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (the clashes Armenia 84 83 when Moscow Moscow Most Union President Putinandthepresidentsof Eastern In recent mediary. military integration. mal in nia ter to the larly Shoigu, Group Over On 2 April 2016 Comprehensive step on 3 September 2013 decision of other organisations S. Ananicz, s mentioned As bringittoan end,orimposetheirown agenda fighting, inthepeaceprocess, Moscow with ‘Armenia’s Republic. membership the European ber 2017, ber 2017 a ceasefire Russian to security
put revealed the probably, it intermediaries, withdraw in 2013 (the US Brussels; contributed held Partnership had an end activities to (Sargsyan) was next Moscow’s years Armenia www.osw.waw.pl). agreement by participate 84 ministers ‘Armenia took guarantees both of telephone
Union, on and first the reacted above, three and was the the the President to
Free from two signed place the chiefs Collective the join and the France), negotiated. power to Kremlin with although turns mediation Moscow’s to after days Summit occasions: by agreement political Trade of later three react signing including the the force the from 2 in the conversations for
away the of foreign Comprehensive Security there their Putin and the EU – Moscow
this quick general the and ‑year neither formal presidents blackmailed the to from Areas in post Yerevan was effectiveness will to 5 April 2016). the This successes para
meeting the was when limited issued conflict’s affairs Treaty the Vilnius ending the which negotiations not obligations ‑Soviet Association ‑led and staffs (DCFTA) of renewed EU’ ‑state Russian a series
at Armenia and pretends two
the and Organisation, , whom the with a statement Eurasian the 4 September 2013, of and their was at of should
of Yerevan Enhanced also
other Kremlin level parties in integration the
Novo instruments towards
the their of defence, to their diplomatic order envisioned of between was activities fighting of conduct
demonstrated Russian that Russia’s
Agreement four Other phone an Association co‑chairs ‑Ogaryovo Economic have do
armed to Partnership able counterparts
Yerevan, with Azerbaijan, aswell asa visit effectively to Yerevan not regarding ‑day accept a multivectoral Sergei stop Armenia’s www.osw.waw.pl. states established include to format Armenia conversations Federation in policies to withdrawing offensive allowing to forces. war prevent resulting Nagorno of calls with Union near be its Agreement Agreement Lavrov had and
the
the (2016). the pressured the was initialled role
for Nagorno were During in Moscow. been the and policy’ international OSCE the weakness it from instead; showed crisis, (Putin) a Deep both announced as a ceasefire. ‑Karabakh to and On 24 Novem European European (CEPA) Yerevan’s (W. Górecki, outbreak spectacu the between , its an inter engaged ‑Karabakh stop Armenia’s 29 Novem the Minsk Arme Sergei states. at while infor EU. This that and and and with the the lat of 83 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
(in Armenia s part As At the The example 85 88 87 86 weapons Minister Medvedev’s Nagorno in in to tion two tered them then, tions plan particularly panied forces and sation’ of of edge, edged According W. Górecki, This
support areas this the the (see Ibidem 30% thought the On Cooperation coherent included rates, etc.). tude that in sides of to include and significant and on
Appendix 2). this four same had
military concept, considerable a towards the of way). resolve Armenian Medvedev . of
affected ‑Karabakh Armenia other this to
Medvedev the that Eastern still document, (see
‑day issue end its attack, to the both visit ‘Nagorno during time, 87 published research the part of widely the conflict issue, hand, the ally’s
do the the ‑industrial This Appendix 3). supported so‑called
war. purchases opposite, Russia’s Partnership EU, as states by limitations to today. idea public of however, Kremlin if but conflict, during share research referred - Russia’s 37% were Karabakh: enemy conflict the data military Yerevan as
88 example
and not in the it is and that it September 2017, in while from 86 of
Russian Russian supply Deputy with known opinion, population
likely shuttle order to Moscow Armenians states, Russia’s the published his bloc, neutral, anyway. wanted which domain. the Russian as Moscow what is 35% thought in activity, and This is the ‘abdication’
Moscow’s trip Yerevan correlated that weapons showed its feared to of confirmed an illustration politicians’ is ‘Lavrov Prime and diplomacy Baku Russia
which was the initiatives. maintain in argument policy arms decided to to in 34% Protests peace 2017 spring ‑based 5% negative. was did deployment
which that Armenia the reinforce on that signalled an increase plan’, up of on 7–8 April 2016.
Minister preferential illustrates consent, not argues as towards respondents with of to?’ region Russia of Analytical ‑keeping many not that was
visits
the , both the the along manage have 13 April 2016, taking 85 does as of
never the to was This that Aliyev’s as balance Russia during that part West, Russian opinion and rather a
Dmitri sides then put terms the 48% to Centre not only Kremlin’s these how perceived in presented forces of Moscow led place Yerevan this of to conflict. who any anti
n EU an partially which (lower convince troops of at Armenians would www.osw.waw.pl. Prime on position to push its of ambiguous Rogozin, lines
that is least the Globalisation greater ‑Russian
This a kind at would was power ‑financed Russia policy in a way prices, was bilateral has in de facto de the a form conflict through an ally, Minister the continue were with also plan’s one the had in a certain as
image also of attractive time, between be towards pressure Azerbaijani for who Armenia’s of of Azerbaijan project a positive sentiment
expressed aftermath which and in its ‘internali
its a consistent, deployed acknowl opposed Moscow assump encoun policies its of charge elements accom Dmitri Regional knowl Prime to Russia.
which shows credit own sec sell the the ally, atti on ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
43 OSW REPORT 5/2020 44 OSW REPORT 5/2020 war‑Georgian in 2008(previously, (the 102 89 91 90 why Moscow’s For regarded ner’ increased interests in image ing the the ting their the towards policy least and as a kind sian sia sible. sian showed society ship thefeatures of security co‑operation country. According The base, This Armenia Moscow’s It has in in ence
was Azerbaijani the Azerbaijan, first Russian the Russian (Moscow’s pressure control and June 2017). the ‘silent comprehensive Secondly, 90
could of of
been key – nd EU, began increased southern Russia’s
and the Baku
place – Western Russia’s Russian of Russia in as although with profits goal favour
be
to in as
base phase and consent’, counterbalance a significant the and representatives began over opened seen, some place with garrisons on was to and
is CIS, until 2044. privileged authorities’ Azerbaijan towards
the the region – determination, as in Armenian Baku – perceive for to Azerbaijani since from the instrumental purchases of in Military integration the Moscow cautiously a formal allianceanddeveloping a network of Yerevan. a partner Russian example, NKR;
include strategic a path the the in so‑called no Soviet dependence region, Azerbaijan’s Gyumri oil case war became military long prompted although how and relations times. experts, in Base to became ‑led by conclusion to elites – ‘GU(U)AM’. the In the of Azerbaijan’s with determined and and to and its alliance ‑term structures. relations
gas proclaiming
high Russian Armenian treatment position integration which at Yerevan, entire and permanent most the action without Azerbaijan hadimplementeda pro Georgia). formally on sales. Gyumri). referring to over case more with especially Baku achievement arms the on Russia active noticeable it in that ‑Russian South there at arms with the time, of costs in purchases has One the the Moscow’s both attractive This to any
participation of Armenia, block Nagorno This without its conflict. moment 89 other military structures. established open limited Russia.
is by form
Caucasus – as agreements rei – Armenia By of clear sides the equal the change no war – Azerbaijan,
mentioned from this especially giving the for the hosts (Based country the military alternative of position declarations to ‑Karabakh Russia’s of presence Russia distance the
in possibility Russian Russian alliance this weakening which, Moscow
around country
the was the guarantee on the This with development bloc with as opening‑up OSW were conflict as firstly after 91 ones – bilateral as above, acceptance, 4000 Russian means a of
on would a ‘strategic which foreign were, from assistance in Turkey interviews was intended
a guarantor pro the because Azerbaijan would up tiesbetween the to of this the
‑Western of continued a result
join to Armenian a popular cemented should its
both one
‑Western and seal explains Western relation Russian country greater to policy). be of to serves future soldiers. of in NATO of ensure hand,
or part states how
Rus Rus Rus dur Baku put pos pres the
its be in of of at ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
The conflict’s impact on political relations in the South Caucasus South the in relations political on impact The conflict’s h Nagorno The 94 93 92 will window not ince is integrity moved involved, introduced itself would integration not resulted the for have halted border both lieonthemaintransitroutefor theregion’s oilandgaspipelines. bility Georgia’s allowed sides, compense during country – option existing
Indirectly, also W. Górecki, Ibidem Ethnic people khlo, market trade Armenian
only admission allow be in only of which
interested
the discussed with closer the 2008 of at southern for
.
Azerbaijan’s Tbilisi Armenian from to from These members – increased were and the
but one location Russian which both participation separatist for
(Moldova the these with likely border ‘Teraz Armenia). Armenia performed would proposals also ‑Karabakh the open together, territorial Georgian these the
of outside to profits
Separatism Russian the leads later in
Georgia loss Dżawachetia? a new with Georgia, profit fact have forces and Georgia’s land having not and ‘good EU. membership and aspirations may ‘under has included
citizens of Armenia in to that
Should received world. Azerbaijan. be its as
in border Clearly, ‑Georgian this politically possibly control concessions state Russia Armenia been in conflict to mostly offices’. the possible they the good the good the Southern (of Georgian, use
Ormiański the importance, chapter). and table’,
into granted third In the a military country organisation’s have long left and share in strong relations its over close of The vast relations
inhabited in 94 which has ‑running could
the Georgia], war. been the the (with in from
territory the However, Georgia’s state to
separatyzm in part early 1990s,
either similar The most Armenian years
the affected significantly this ethnic security (and EAEU Eurasian is the majority veto this conflict but Iran). with in border operation an important Analizy OSW Analizy of with may status). by conflict 2016–17 the
Armenia its for also conflict Black Azerbaijan’s work Armenians requires the problems w południowej still and Armenians Georgia 93 of
with
guarantees). important not region. lands, both
attacking Economic limited the For erupt
of allows be) Azerbaijani Nagorno the , Azerbaijan,
an open Sea as zone transactions no. 3, Moscow only part this Baku (the economic or Armenian the as n observer an as the there, harbours – Tbilisi platform of 28 February 1998. regarding it Azerbaijan. reason,
(Nagorno well state’s in transit ‑air
the the Gruzji’ and of ‑Karabakh membership – to Union targets consent nationalities) and Javakheti 92
which probed market ‘Lavrov these receive
Armenia taking as However, income, states and located [Now
Yerevan Armenia through the government to in was
in ‑Karabakh bazar ‑state gains is Baku plan’. territorial place host of exchange Javakhetia? the
Armenia but This fact benefits some its a place directly Georgia conflict as (a prov
all on would allowed in
possi well since
main in have have both that was this Sada has has the the the did this re for as ‑ ‑ ‑
45 OSW REPORT 5/2020 46 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‑keeping 97 96 95 Despite European Russia’s It should 2.2. remain mander military tense trouble the tory, tant the that has because Ossetia. Gyumri; a few any actionaimedatregainingNagorno military and sian scale of could countries). ders estimated The As well Statement
its 0 km, 200 800 km, в Нагорном lated many by Nagorno conflict The economic proved Turkey) Georgia one soldiers with Azerbaijan a decision of territory relations potentially years
that some
people open the
the at response Regardless or of this as was activity also
in four with Union,
that
the 97 an increase mediatory to from its the Russian and later, military ‑Karabakh
Карабахе Azerbaijan allows stationed
of President for could to and
to for yearly be be Turkey current lengths greater of beyond between earn time. press a prevent are participates remembered
more Armenia, the its generate in when of to (and
revenues a living clearly
of
its in
over activities still 102 five dimension 96 a statement de iure de Tbilisi’s Azerbaijan of failure movement
forces interview the Russia’s - Saakashvili distance challenging. troops Abkhazia in Armenia’s я conflict
Russia’s Armenia 5 km, 250 has Iran база closed neighbours. Georgia expansiveness
Gyumri in state from very threaten to the
open are может and in (provoked) and was to
of which in
that this main crisis with 95 borders today
serious affairs. regional from in deployed 2013; October pass (with
of military and by the right and withdrew crossings the market could December 2005. вмешаться – also
Russia’s Azerbaijan conditions goods The borders Tbilisi of Colonel aims only loss The situation South through US, Yerevan, Ukraine (February 2020). are: Russia’s a signal after Armenia)
threats amounted intervene; transport
attack in with as for of and engagement) the with policy ‘При
at Ossetia
the (including from of the 2008 war, well foreign Командир’ Andrei control that Iran its the 1990s borders its people from to ‑Karabakh. Otherwise, theRus
more to region, возобновлении to on the of borders as territory are Azerbaijan around signing US$1 billion). Georgia. became operation – policy
projects, this for Armenia separatist (the Tskhinvali region). most
Ruzinsky, loss joining the over , difficult blocked (independent 1news.az, (Iran the with
Moscow overall. was This Nakhchivan km, 35 or of with of the the more victorious which to In case
control
admitted
if is and
NATO – the Georgia The market situation (with военного to reach with 31 October 2013.
DCFTA part the as forces access, less Russia, Russian the
not could active neighbouring economists has the started Georgia exclave) most of of base’s Azerbaijan significant undertake over its
open
the конфликта and
Armenia result in renewed
with as was its demand and Georgia is around base impor peace South much around more more
almost large terri closed with com Iran calcu bor the the of in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
‘longitudinal’ projectswhich haveAll theinfrastructure beencompletedsincethe 1990s(and 99 98 war way would which For impossible ing impeded inyan influential is trade exchange takes althoughtherearealso placeviatransitthroughGeorgia, this phenomena business andpoliticalconnections)corruption.PrimeMinisterPash from key. lost limits Georgia and Iran,(in theNAR exclave) withTurkey (as mentionedabove, Baku has already and Tbilisi. a shorter direct collapse, electrical especially The only These its was collection ple modernised of Russian only tion Armenia in the line During in activated deep Moscow
is have flight (as mentioned the schemes its are a bilateral this were old generated and ran trying border access
route, Iran–Armenia grid participation infrastructure concerns being service
dependence social Railways). railway to run Armenia hasalsolostitslandconnections(roadandrail)withTur usually Georgian the
as (Mozdok–Tbilisi–Yerevan). connections. was through Turkey, another which projects use and in project.
the through to Soviet avoiding not to crossings in planned autumn 2017), class caused the eliminate Nakhchivan involved rail some the pleased oligarchisation connections W. Górecki, the and gas In addition, Abkhazia negative above, offices republic. investment alternative period, from links – that by
on pipeline, Armenia in tensions ‘latitudinal’ the with publications the Russian now) were
of Russia. regional lives Russia after these ‘A revolution high the same the see the some consequence completed as and opened In turn, opened capital, South demonstrative with have but off
failed, later in mountains, border line a result the problems, sections with route of This, to
was
the relations also and Caucasus
projects Russia for bypassed social plan which Iran, from in information in in
temporarily. country’s closed the use the
instalments…’, is in this with concerns the of international of to were used the
at night which turn, oil of life Russia
post which Railway, blockade the the although chapter). build through with Soviet
which
Turkey the and in 1992, not ‑Soviet Armenia, on (the emergence searches beginning by conflict). generates deficit welcomed the Nagorno
were gas the were Moscow. gas which a Caspian which the op. cit. op. Thus, informal Azerbaijan period pipeline by
was Azerbaijan pipelines 98
in existing, his undertaken Baku–Tbilisi–Kars economic
planned is there of 2007. In addition, economy Azerbaijan connection which by a 100% daughter runs closed, which undertakings Armenian ‑Karabakh 99 connections such the from
oil All in However, Kremlin
through included went although of by Russia pipeline significantly Soviet is to these
undesirable (namely but trade. and
Armenia’s a rich participat run Armenia ‑Turkish makes
with and through after have (for conflict profits Armenia company this things times; along
corrup Baku have This exam that and rail been few, the the was its tax it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
47 OSW REPORT 5/2020 48 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (although Azerbaijan various The social 102 101 100 Regardless Kars Baku 2.3. munity. mean nection in tioned tant taking the transports from have has both states, which areincreasingly unwilling topermitcontactsbetween their Georgia along theCaspianSea coastisenvisioned for launchlaterin 2020. and Iran citizens) course disappearance There Georgia’s During Julfa result are and Tehran). through to still since 2016 The social conflict proved link
Nakhchivan, line), through Baku worsened also that needs above place as (in NAR) international is of (via The broken has the initially as
in local already Armenia. the transit new unique
cost
is to while both a train to
non Soviet of has a result land region,
Iranian proved Nagorno without possible (process train be and Armenia
whether of even generations ‑profitable), of built. a line position lost the dimension Russia period,
has from
a direct transport impeded on connections the
from the though ‑Karabakh
investment including Once of run from the historical to these railways)
sense
once ratings. Armenia’s which, the Nagorno
as where to Nakhchivan (andfurther the
be Iran. once and it a regional it is Baku railway this Moscow–Tehran railway the
the routes has again conflict.
(see of running a week ready, come conflict. is Georgia as to it it
a large a pan implementation main Armenia Map). ties with the been ‑Karabakh well should runs climate transport
participation, (thanks it
connections from via border connection of will Otherwise, between detour. ‑Caucasian The above as Turkey.
economic from involved to age, will Iran
the train be those be city the
hub, in
possible
and city to In the and be recalled,
operated is
Turkey conflict of its
Iranian the
some especially 100 Armenians of technically Astara, able running decreased
between
NAR, is ‑mentioned Nakhchivan difficult between in At the
of beneficiary to above Georgia cultural pipelines partially renew
on the any to to in but is on to on city this in addition send ‑mentioned partially Armenia moment the infrastructural trilateral oil from railway the
route, Baku geopolitical of would
its and and has and possible, Armenia’s to Yerevan) section
being and Tabriz, Mashhad region line to principal gas of which Russia become civilisational Azerbaijanis connections and most the
transportation, taking the from this receive and initiatives that train stimulated ran 101
likely Iran Baku–Tbilisi–
in includes has a branch allows (through situation Astara to Thiswould connection position
Azerbaijan through location. runs practice to an impor a natu Armenia. territory be running projects Iran, from railway running to
a con from Tabriz men with com Baku; Rasht is there Baku the ral the by in in 102 it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Accord, years To illustrate This words isa whole that the region organismwhose orany disintegration, attempt was 104 103 Russia First its it representatives to the political unofficially pro ficult, less literally been Chechen Georgia, and signed states education; of escalation There
declares).
secede youth surroundings Konflikty zbrojne na terenie państw WNP państw terenie na zbrojne Konflikty generation NGOs paragraph aspects and perestroika ber ‑Russian breaking
consistently Heydar prepared process Chechen possible after
of make. especially while and in and the Peace is
impossible. leaders Armenia of willing War from no Kislovodsk of the board democratisation. members
projects Chechnya’s I have period of data Aliyev supported their policies While
the is the off the and even had War ceasefire there upon Russia, also of on from
region’s would drawn of or to scale Nagorno since implemented), the
and topics the Economic of started even
(an armistice Georgia is at respectively. ties. join aimed
affected Solidarity former After Boris (although no overall in Armenia,
the upon Azerbaijan: inhabitants of would before. representatives). the information not the 103 in It is projects Russia’s were
changes ‑Karabakh turn
dissident Nagorno my (in its the 2008 e.g. at Yeltsin’s mid-1990s, number worth opts have rebels). Fund by and This personal unavoidably limited of since
the still Azerbaijan for pointing … is PL, been The document run North was Cultural while
on conflict initial circles. of the ,
especially Eduard that op. cit. op. ‑Karabakh,
remain a pro the such which different initiative In the Russian experience military Pashinyan by being present to able we details out Azerbaijan have projects Caucasus phase, foreign ‑Western ‘soft’ provides A similar in resolution
Cooperation may here Shevardnadze, true bring new to touch: and negotiated ‑Georgian of taken
foreign from sign that century, conflict areas of and their (which by consider both development circumstances, activists Georgia, came was NGOs they great individual the the during
course, implementation. their signed declaration remains place such are had often Shevardnadze years entitled then policy to in 2016, became misery that from in war, in prepared established the names power,
as and 2014–15, the the in very Levon representatives Armenia assistance on 3 June 1996, presidents end the is culture, and declaration choices uninvolved the Caucasus’. last ‘For later after first the to by intense in would much under
That when they the Ter region contact especially different all. disputes phase South Inter recruitment concentrated made is the ‑Petrosyan and is Caucasian 104 which science I was are of pursuing more why not of Yeltsin’s during Caucasian talks ‑ethnic Second
the and Russia, Aliyev which entities) of It was (or so being a mem them in have
older two and the the the dif this the by or in on ‑ ‑
49 OSW REPORT 5/2020 50 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Altogether, These 106 105 Iran Iranian 3.1. neighbourhood distant more its and 3. The conflict rations its in initiatives. is nature. took the to to from Since but before gain almanac an Armenian allow for alliance some sia, of ers. of In the Tehran
larger ensure exploit buffer both Tehran of a the mediation
Iran region these resulting review The former, and (or rather its part all of issues its days, the territory
years 2011–13. of
positions the Among with its was than Turkey’s three titled Azerbaijani separatismtodevelop (the Azerbaijani populationinIran outset proposals zone and (together of
them Russia’s would the nineteenth under is
above three the n pig 1992, spring In region’s also pan available Baku, military from it is services for Turkey’s journal first for Южный Кавказ Южный states re‑gain) afraid ‑Caucasian greater the the anti to ‑mentioned issues grow, from
Iran’s interest The journal them. in weaker were which
their with ‑Iranian peace a large online neighbours of Nagorno most on Azerbaijan as an Azerbaijani century offensive the and Azerbaijan’s and of their positions security: auspices. well not In addition, their at historical Nowa Europa Wschodnia Europa Nowa
plan, could in interesting Israeli the
position www.apsnyteka.org/438 did extent, new initiatives that accepted. Armenian the ‑Karabakh pan former
as not
journal American (Southern when
operations. which
mobilise Washington (especially the formats conflict itself); cover in ‑Israeli ‑Turkic the However,
have Nagorno experiences. territory. after three
influence the Iran Russia Caucasus were In turn, ones are alliance, ‑Azerbaijani Stepanakert
topic and been conflict initially for and plans Iran’s the Caucasus), was rarer para
website
Iran published. of was ‑Karabakh. of became the talks would 106 -
and Russian collapse the yuzhny_kavkaz_almanach.html motivated in
afraid in a possible come ‑states own
region
Turkey,
and conflict of and Russian a April 1993 talks has took Tehran the (in Polish). Baku’s on enter Azerbaijani then
a player usually negotiations Turkey) to which been that Caucasus – several counterparts) the 105
of were on that was possible fruition. Later in
principle. by and the into rejected. American form the ‑language drawing turn, Turkish are to gathered their broken of
there – Soviet more Ankara US’s and agreement on an anti become
of an ephemeral in
minority The content hoped that Iran
fear some global took the position After that, diplomats occasions, attention attack Union in off ‑Iranian in is, authors literary wanted offered to . of region. a kind Also prepa to
peace order the place
from after
play
Rus and of see use on see
in to all ‑ ‑ ‑
‑first (together Ankara The failure Turkish These This attitudewas importantenoughfor Turkey while 108 107 Europe ise relations(preparedtogether withtheparticipationof national nian the ties to opentwo monthslater).However, didnottake placebecause theratification tioning by bothparliaments(andthe fication foreign for On the although and an intermediary a visit attempts served suscitating casus on of cols – conflict, asgenocide.der shouldberecognised This Armenia’s stronginternalresistanceinbothstates, andespecially becauseof October 1992. Yerevan Azerbaijan other of borders foreign
century
on 10 October 2009 after on docu Azerbaijan, took by
the one meeting itself has policy effectively banks which teams
establishing with at initially hand, Turkey’s place ments,
network minister Armenia’s of the hand, involve not normalising with
as minister
the and a few President and (Yerevan’s (in Baku’s there). seemed
collapse established Azerbaijan’s Azerbaijan in in Armenia). there Armenian which this of Istanbul negotiated get weeks President its failed the Azerbaijan of foreign
economy). blockade diplomatic In April 2009
the was was talks, possible alliances was after of threatened Sargsyan, relations view, to in goal
borders affairs the in
not and dismissed ‑Turkish diplomatic the an alliance involve ally Zurich were Abdullah which with Soviet pro the and of was connected until Turkey. at (see that
The intensification relations
‑Turkish Armenia’s supposed that with only he with the Turkey to both their to itself he 108 Armenian the normalisation Appendix 2). had watched Union time withdraw after
Gül’s Yerevan that,despiteTurkey’s support assistance
said diversify relations Yerevan clearly wanted toseparateits between legitimate Ankara The first Turkey Elchibey end sides
foreign been was
in to and blockading that a statement to to borders and of the any Raffi come a football accepted
Yerevan ‑Turkish borderwas supposed
came developing established the from re‑opened, more
Armenian the 1915 Armenia the Nagorno with alliance Armenia’s ministers new of Hovannisian. means first to process
into of Switzerland, in Nagorno power the than
independent peace
their relations July 1992,
on 6 September 2008 a roadmap American diplomats), decade match during force of Nagorno ‑Karabakh was and
in US$10 billion bilateral in in
signed enforced putting Azerbaijan. transport Russia He initiatives, ‑Karabakh the the approached Russia; after between of was a Council 107 started
the which South hope ‑Karabakh
two mass to theactivi dismissed
the Arme ‑oriented their relations. Armenia, pressure and conflict. normal twenty and routes proto of from their with mur posi Cau war. was rati pre
on re by of in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
51 OSW REPORT 5/2020 52 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‑oriented Amendment 907 This would 110 109 Moldova For Iran, 3.2. ments mer this then tion the territories’ ( twenty peared flict from key hiero States. Sea border a factor and amendment a resolution states does of of onto T. de Waal,
any liberal J. Wróbel for settlement. Consequences settlement. for size The position Western
is through the move
has of Soviet ‘axis’ global with cracy predominant the which
achieved – with 110 supported
form ‑first expand crossing in oil of result that
been (also perspective former Its , some democracy,
was was culturally and ‘Nagorno these has republics BlackGarden markets adequate formally in of should at to century passing states, Armenia. hindered periodically
influenced of assistance, gas then intended first worldwide. the analytical closer between resources
to Soviet ‑Karabakh’ intensive the the
of pipelines conflict – belief the be especially envisioned would glance
…, of Islamic, showed the idea the large in assistance the relations
interpreted , op. cit. op.
Freedom access In turn, Azerbaijan’s district),an informal Zangilan pedestrian international OSW, republics, the to Iran
phrase West
discourse, in West not with of in: ‑scale Uzbekistan). was be lobbying force o reconcile To might ,
early 1990s, Warsaw 2003,
p. 234. Armed conflicts in the post the in conflicts Armed in the building and that and and impossible. just to the significantly the the felt as on 24 October 1992,
with to Support ‘the ‘end production Caspian Baku an agreement the also US look the a counterbalance as by namely ensure exception region. obliged and by
Moscow–Yerevan–Tehran law
both a culturally NKR of which Baku an oil course Shi’ite, to p. 27, like the
in the history’ these Act, such stop oil On the an expression that operated Georgia, It was www.osw.waw.pl. Mincivan, Armenian to
and a paradox: pipeline overestimated) and Nagorno was and of which of provide Azerbaijan. a border its ‑soviet region. Present situation. Prospects Prospects situation. Present region. ‑soviet motivations stability
humanitarian, Yerevan, on
the transportation other actively narrative gas blockade believed Christian the Ukraine, unofficially, to prohibited
the Nagorno from ‑Karabakh resources a town diaspora the the hand, crossing status a state and US of involved as
At the young Azerbaijan
group then
of and political and Congress Western Armenia well democratic in in Azerbaijan ‑Karabakh
of Armenia. with to
in axis’ the the (at that line final the was that
of even conflict the of Azerbaijan; turn post as the
in resources provision ‘occupied
construc Western with idealism a Shi’ite Moscow, illegal. even Caspian
without
govern victory the though ‑Soviet than United passed to of
time This rule Tur
was con and the the for ap 109 it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
The turning The completion The peak which 112 111 Kocharyan in ning runs alonga similarroute, have proved thatCaspianresourcescanbeextracted no mit the to the the take the ported basin’s but gaining an active ambitions at and a decreaseinsupport for thedemocratictransformation of and at risk about states. opposition construction ell Since The BTC
least the the (see visions pian today the such
region new was West’s construction also effectively place. of anti resolving region reforms was Sea Kosovo’s of The latter
status the Appendix 2). until (February 2020).
a change
independence, held event of millennium. by ‑terrorist
participant. being of oil was terrorist and the gradual in and protests). involved Nonetheless,
Washington; pipeline point US the in agreed until had amendment the still
was assertiveness. that Aliyev independence Key shelled involvement of exported the coalition, autumn of attack
of also years been
took unregulated;
the was on the organised
withdrawal
had West, atmosphere conflict the militarily in 2018: However, 111 These first From 3 were on 11 September 2001 resulted BTC end for place by opposed and
2003–05 the been Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan of 2007 the the another 12 used Florida. even Nagorno of and see US also processes then was in
in
optimism international George W. President, in 2005, afterwards, initiated footnote 82. to 6 April 2001, en masseen in despite 112 from the the the
during from joined in on (once evidenced
and the - Afghanistan this, month During international Baku–Tbilisi–Erzurum ‑Karabakh first conflict the and Western ‘colour Mikheil the empowered , overlapped and the by in
in again which the period, n unresolved an grounds that half Bush’s
region this these its Azerbaijan the nor BTE announcement Armenian in overlapped
then of 2008, revolutions’ turn, although Georgia
US gas met disappointment Saakashvili’s event, did Armenians). September 2002 an Armenian (BTC) and presidency by former
pipeline that relations.
Secretary (although Congress,
with the with characterised (and overlapped Iraq, formally talks
oil
it when was expected Armenia) diaspora
an increase objections in 2006. conflict Soviet with ran pipeline remained annually which between gas of the at It took of
it brutal first the ‑Azerbaijani through
the remains a future the
The status State subsequently pipeline, thepost republics only with with
by breakthrough United has and suspends took the beginning the end (earlier, from crushing the the Presidents in interested Colin exception, binding the also their
West with thinking territory of 2008) place summit, Russia’s form of start ‑Soviet Russia States, which
begin the the joining upon been sum Pow halt sup until the the Cas pro in of of of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
53 OSW REPORT 5/2020 54 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (meetings (February), At the of sametime, theinternationalsignificance Appendix 2), The pushing Minsk USA Kremlin Russia Russia join istan it is national in nent the itsdominantpositionintheSouth Caucasus.to mediatetheconflict,confirming that ended the 2008 war, Moscow openeda new negotiation format for Nagorno tion tion – kept how Saakashvili become by broke ground – OSCE and a halt and extent emergence ensure out a way the current impossible fear on 11 September 2001, theintervention of South the NATO of much in basis. and
unfriendly to Minsk out
Group US to Washington the West further peace mind
‘devalued’ war the it
of undertook is gna – agenda be Iraq, and in Ossetia, became
between
open the the also
and international and from political operation able in of
taking that August 2008 and co‑chairs Group), to and
West fighting to
the the a result strengthened conservation was, (at the then
activities some to solve power; stability the since a domestic and the
Nagorno Azerbaijan Donbas, would at maintain the the really relations
on
Nagorno
left which and that
the war extent to of (France in NATO initiative presidents the the
but
ostracism. recognise what the Nagorno be
conflict in not, cared of was time in ‑Karabakh on Russian one
of the ready on tacitly the the issue matter Syria its the Summit ‑Karabakh in
the for seems
is and Moscow’s
its
hand, were the about conflict West, the position military in constantly EU at instance, ‑Karabakh networks one for to the on
the of ‑Georgian the other agreed
It was the South
of (the EU an increasingly fully
defend decisive in the Russia, issue Russia, and the hand, US),
independence resolution Ukraine current zone. conflict Bucharest
response forces other. hand, after
South also supported
no Caucasus, to that which onto of theWestern coalitionin fighting and its is in something war, occupy coincidence
Armenia enough alliances. represented represented
the stage, April 2016. Caucasian it That it Russia’s theconflicthaddiminished; and has Caucasus the the
of gave had was the to in mentioned
popular backburner to
Georgia’s the terrorist Tbilisi being by of and the – and to April).
for annexation deployed moderate a great Moscow
and the the which conflict keep engagement the contributed that as partner. that The activities its said, in
para by
or other assumption Azerbaijan, The war well Kremlin attacks way in extent it its invitations try France was shortly negotiations carte blanche carte in ‑states
it of in on a way enough interpreta
‑Karabakh as of two to should
of Abkhazia the The reac accepted the a perma
Afghan to remove
Crimea
shaped testing on would
which in to to OSCE it inter what with after fore
that
has put the the the see the for be to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
‘stable At the very The state The Nagorno war well with Its IV. SUMMARY AND FORECASTS IV. SUMMARYAND reports relations respect infrastructure, in nomic institutional recognised not is to the post flict, hoods, and and as and current drawing dents elite or andthereislittleriskthattheseincidentscouldturnintoan open on thefront day est not control Armenia unrealistic. unfavourable goal number oldest, consent ‑Soviet (when there Donbas to on as of quickly). even the Baku moment, ideal instability’, and
and ensure in one the of to is – political
international para between of the
though the are it fatalities. social. and such has Eurasia of Nagorno
other has and of for to
at minimum – wars, political ‑Karabakh mediators will ‑state.
border
South the military Although for dimensions If the left while the Nagorno either initiated a scenario Azerbaijan’s
circumstances, agenda. it set The Nagorno its hand, states. Moscow itself remains since de facto de one a permanent happened, and ‑Karabakh For This Caucasus. a precedent significance areas suspension for
side. attention and incidents
that conflict the a guaranteed ‑Karabakh’s both the Russia, a way Armenia Russia are, state
loss became
and and of an important intermediaries). to Middle It is involves option post
Baku Azerbaijan on receive ‑Karabakh it of spheres: the For can of is
Republic. it and which to would mark and
least the ‑Soviet for (shootings) control
has the is has putting
more former East, these the and be of also not status quo status one the the indeterminacy ‘mother’
diminished (formally security all become
illustratively favourable on conflict is be Yerevan the probable and a deliberate ‑out not history, largest reasons post element and question over hand, profiting the Finally Soviet probably pressure
It is purely where fully ‑Soviet course Armenia, war along
of a part
an instrument is guarantees and
an expression also recognised) number
are not all republics. shaping the in 2016, since of content to and should has
military, from every keeping
post
called the a result on controlling characterised which policy of a ‘frozen’ Azerbaijan, of decision territory, Nagorno played thirdly,
the the and its Armenia demarcation ‑Soviet of the Moscow not decision their with a ‘hot territory. for
Russian region’s at currently
actors there the this of land current a dominant a priori which ‑Karabakh by the conflict:
the of t is it as a provocation modern the conflicts. political, the
issue cold
the which and frustration, connection
are junction well intervened by made (including para ‑Georgian status quo status transport way a situation The inci allows
political the state be obtains line, regular war’
the on as ‑state every state
with does seen larg role
con It is eco the the un or as of of of it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .
55 OSW REPORT 5/2020 56 OSW REPORT 5/2020 The current would 1. Russia Practically In the jan, impose the that flict. lack but a case, among attempt an attempt a significant able ance suspension, of of
the its disturbance A would have NKR rent that tries, for bakh between bance groups ers catastrophe. could
lesser evil. also and to of is, This of peace other attempt the
the (which case of Armenia’s push the potential would
a peace
circumstances, winning
as power to caused also of clan’ prompt could take means end
emergence (clans)
a result speaking, force ruling to deep ‑keeping of Yerevan players – state it forward change Russia, initiate who
clearly has of to would Baku such on between by In Armenia
both internal that and/or a clear take March; the elites of over of sufficient its a leadership are of a move
in
Prime place and affairs and are forces, at
its the a war own have be a change the of stronger the Moscow’s sides linked power; one anyone least of
anti own political interested more victory Armenia
Stepanakert at Yerevan, parliamentary tensions, balance US,
terms. both as an
of Minister would is to that another is would ‑Russian tools for agenda a result
EU, to impact very the agree a result or beneficial wishing crisis, of side states, position the time former in
will by Iran above to the not between and
low. run resolving including in moment, the
reason to manage to an economic to Pashinyan on and guerrilla a conflict of status quo status (there to only maintaining
but and of use its Azerbaijan; the Therefore, regulate it); to
next parameters: presidents the deep get and into
to several
as fight conditions, also Turkey – mean risk force for the implement a result, situation more is the presidential
war, account; the the revolution. disruptions forces such a risk within
might for of is parties and conflict probability the to parameters: conflict
collapse possible deeply is strong both the power Kocharyan ) the 2) and resolve unrest which a fight risk supporters not should of
in erupt including their status quo status
Armenia the destabilisation to 3) the Armenia). effectively,
a realistic of As for involved resistance, elections in to in stance or only the could results
between ‘Lavrov societies a military it. between not that one their one a humanitarian 1) a certain limited Such and conflict
in be Moscow, the , of of and be the of seeing adopted the advantage, in from
ruled In the scheduled
Sargsyan;
the the plan’ but scenario; a conflict the presence different a distur Kremlin not (in such support Azerbai the failure, case agency in states ‘Kara coun is sides their out). it only
con and cur any bal the un by as of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
The scenarios 2. to 3. over the coming few years, the Nagorno the years, few coming the over a necessary point of reference for all actors whoactiveactors are all region. for reference this in of point a necessary and Caucasus South the in landscape political of element a permanent be The former worry If ter, by be Greater strengthening one of
the Russia the conflict; a different prompted Russia of most
about these potential undergoes outlined would realistic, could states possible (or coerced) external could and probably bring to above and lead expand Russian ambitions significant a player on the to are into decide a new the third their presently intervention), to withdrawing This text was completed in February 2020 in completed was text This on ‘manage’ imposition war to influences one the and make (as the part the not ‑Karabakh conflict will remain will conflict ‑Karabakh long the least. some of very of or ‑lasting from
in region. Iran two
a possibly the All in all, indicates that indicates all, in All likely; concessions Pax Russica Pax sides or the South Turkey In the weakening, Caucasus, the would lead Caucasus. first case
in to could to not an attempt the one both of while it prompt have
region. the seems could sides lat its to ‑ .
57 OSW REPORT 5/2020 58 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (Azerbaijanis APPENDIX 1. APPENDIX The Bolsheviks The root witnessed which with 113 Peace motivated it inhabited is ing nationalmovements andmodernnationalisms(Armenian in their the first historical raion ans although an autonomous Origins separated stituted sions share offices der out intheyears 1905–06, while themutualanimosityincreasedaftermassmur
This ethnically had the Turkey here reference is as nineteenth was to very
the the this the privileged were Conference of 21.5% Azerbaijanis) South were appendix in more in
carried is
89.1% of of and important Azerbaijani Azerbaijani order Christian proportion in 1989 by the and from Nagorno by is such
the strengthened Iran), stimulated
made. close topic Caucasus ethnic geographic, to a ‘divide focuses constituted
cultural of conflict’s the (1987–2020) Outline history tensions century. avoid also oblast. out Armenia clashes which treatment the
for of In a similar the assigned to Appendix 2. Armenians ‑Karabakh understanding against on Armenians repetitions. Armenians included was Azerbaijan. Muslim and is population, the after described and For by
centre dates As a result in internal
91.7% Azerbaijanis and then by there. economic processes 98% of way, the a long the rule’ by the it mountains),
community. In places back deepened Nagorno which more became the the the province years with Armenian increased dynamics its (according were The only policy. In 1918
course time, course and its
to Tsarist broadly Armenian of
of
and where people the 1918–20.
population, was still migrations
Azerbaijanis 10%). a part modernisation. ‑Karabakh of of (the role the The region pogroms by
to demographic in the the exception transport clearly even in this still Over population administration, the Azerbaijan. to authorities a clash conflict. peace to from the of aspect main the 1926 census population; This of almost 7% Armenians). though subsequent
Russia Russia; process region; predominant from took text while The international in other is between area was was connections particularly of Azerbaijan, in 1915
completely the changes place The first is this in Persia this in Shusha, granted in was presented this, parts US Baku the However, Nagorno report, generated the decades decision initiatives; the in in overwhelmingly and Armenians first combined important,
(76.9% Armeni that Baku Turkey, of whole filled was 113 aspect clashes then an important here the Azerbaijani),
te area (the with Azerbaijani Turkey, Azerbaijan, ‑Karabakh
decades only took these the very positions affecting status was of the develop conflict Shusha signalled it, a proper which which broke
place briefly, Paris with which high also con ten the of of is of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
‑Armenian (although The As Moscow The central authoritiestriedtorelieve tensionsby usingthe‘sticks andcarrots’ The authorities 145,000 Armenians 26 Armenians, in theNKAO which hadbeenprovoked by of a group in national it. wasmethod. In March 1988an economicprogramme establishedfor theoblast illegal, result then the oblastwould leave the the NKAO, the until pogroms provoked by opponentsof later SSR baijanis becoming as a mass stationed strations of oblast conservative compatriots oblast occasions
Azerbaijan, did At the the outbreak public agreed perestroika in such August 1990 of council, the to growing and exodus the from
movement,
a provocation; be took in started same to there the inhabitants a state slogans in a series NKAO they did to the
transferred transfer were opponents of Armenia first Armenia include place which 5 Azerbaijanis and of of
city time, not crisis), was full were
was in ethnic period (1987–91) period and
Soviet were killed. refugees erupted of after ‑scale intervened
consent living no in the chose the
a state convened anti also some Azerbaijan; earliertheSupreme Soviet of also of it also Sumgait, and while chance
they Communists in to
republic Armenia Armenians oblast into
the Nagorno
Soon ‑Azerbaijani perestroika war. dismissed there). introduced the Armenia the in districts the in became to Khrushchev could of Armenia. and in Azerbaijan). this
tactic Armenia’s indicates Soviet The fact to
that after, without NKAO), emergency early 1989 an industrial
their ‑Karabakh, did and 1 Lezgin At the conflict. have it ). active of from was by
of but not from 27
leadership. could there, As a result, 4000 peoplefledfrom in
the riots Azerbaijan republic.
Baku Moscow. the that and its that been signed Baku). consent turn operating claims,
thaw Azerbaijan oblast were (see On 22 February 1988, Azerbaijani fait accompli fait Moscow was took have became neither the deemed where
backed to 29 February of 1988, city they the Armenia’s killed. by pogroms During introduced
place been massive On 12 July 1988, (similar to in 80,000 people
near main Azerbaijanis, two of under the in 1987 the the January 1990 took asked (and by both (which implemented, These deputies, both NKAO . the Mikhail army last Baku, On 1 December 1989 might
text direct strikes protests an exodus pressure authorities, of Moscow perestroika a demand in straw in
incidents these anti may of being nor the Armenia, during Armenia have
control decided during Gorbachev’s this and the (a few ‑Armenian (out
the Armenian have leading with decisions from on included been because of NKAO’s report), demon
for period, militia which which of led
many their
Azer been riots days over anti that
and and the the the the to to ‑ ‑
59 OSW REPORT 5/2020 60 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‑Karabakh (and The Nagorno Armenia which was 1991 USSR In early 1992, Baku During By Baku its ipate between ing areasintensified mostly leftin 1990. nia new ing nian tional this troops, to the had lives belongs On 10 December and on cial of of cil
the the vote the aggression and Azerbaijani (and
the republic’s been recognition represented (see inhabited the pogroms crush SSR in and in deprived (which community) Nagorno Khanlar has end a joint district oblast and in these the to parts Shaumyan the actively taking pacified and Armenia’s always the Republic, of 1989 Armenian ethnic referendum. main still took of into session pogroms. after against the Supreme Goranboy ‑Karabakh war (1992–94) war ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh districts overwhelmingly Nagorno ( villages
raion of place the a declaration an independence participated. existed supported text ‑Armenian NKAO, the practically
the was At that timeclashes inNagorno place the the district NKAO). ) which
elections. on 2 September 1991, a neighbour separatism) in city republic’s
councils of organised para collapse ‑Karabakh of in On 20 January Soviet in Nagorno
district The para this while at
Republic. the (see the Baku ‑state of The very would this Nagorno Azerbaijan’s OMON, supported by Soviet military the report). guerrilla Azerbaijan
of ethnically the the passed It is proclaimed In reaction on 10 January 1990 by of
budget from 13 time) of war in
‑Karabakh entire would ‑state
state. Operation of main referendum Azerbaijan the
include Armenians, the Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani likely
few by its ‑Karabakh According deemed a law Soviet groups. NKAO, divisions Azerbaijani and
was the text to 19 January autonomy, mean Armenians diverse SSR. that deputies the the to Soviet granting transformed not of on ‘Ring’ Union,
the It confirmed these SSR. Yerevan’s up establishment this
In order (unrecognised whole this In response, and the to recognised Armenians, of territory ‑Karabakh anditssurround Shaumyan to Union the
of decision but was population At that report). population it the unification now who steps, 90 Armenians the its
in the passed territory opposition the Soviet to
carried which inhabitants formal guerrilla
stayed into its against NKAO’s disperse outside as the authorities time even unconstitutional. territory on 26 November, district, because of another a full well by Army refugees establishment had did
in out of admission of the this by Armenia. the oblast in
Azerbaijan
fights ‑scale the as the not the left the lost in Armenia, Armenia, Nagorno the and entered interna the district attacks largely includ spring oblast, partic of oblast Arme Arme latter coun from their right part that war.
offi the
of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
As a result of Armenians village In June 1992, Both sideshadtheirmomentsof jaly managed important ing resolutions the the to to territories proclaimed republic,ledbyunrecognised Robert Kocharyan; heintroduceda stateof from former had had but therewere probably morevictims, asa further120 peoplewere recognised bajar ber they alsotookcontrol of gency greater and as so‑called started census direct city locatedbetween Nagorno once early 1993 one over offensive, a conflict its missing. ‘occupied above from been of town moved been time again south which had 96%,
on attack the of to oblast. the than
security
supporting to ‑mentioned Shaumyanovsk the February regain the (26 February). ethnically Armenians chiefs, moved that road retook Lachin took closer This (between mass demanded regain that the thenext offensive,
from 90% the territories’ territory Armenians The most and were Azerbaijanis over was had connecting the mobilisation. Azerbaijanis Surat his belt to almost of
around district Azerbaijan, Jabrayil 99.6%). until
positions emerged Lachin. them the homogenous, the located Lachin Nagorno troops territories. massacred (it is the under Huseynov, important which biggest population (its May, Officially, all (assisted for withdrawal half recorded supposed the of to Nagorno A Committee and to name ‑Karabakh and had his several within ‑Karabakh they
began
Armenian The Azerbaijani the see of Ganja, Azerbaijani landseastof the which the successes andfailures. single the civilians
control, Together Nagorno been
who
former by Map). had Nagorno has victory with north the 89.9% as (according so‑called to the a counteroffensive. months, ‑Karabakh the started inFebruary 1993, which of crime after been lost. shelling defend death
Azerbaijani the
and Armenian Previously Russian forces dissolved of who NKAO, ‑Karabakh’s of was with ‑Karabakh This
Armenia. Between June andOcto the changed the
share weakened of Defence Iran). Azerbaijani see of Lachin Nagorno offensive were
the the Stepanakert. failures to
Lachin, former took was 485 persons with as the air
data of takeover Four war. all troops
well command. the trying now main to force –
corridor, control then Azerbaijanis territory Armenia. Republic volunteer After an offensive theformer NKAO and ‑Karabakh the Ashagy
from NKAO, on these ‘occupied lost UN as By made citizens, text from took the Kalbajar, Azerbaijani to August of Security its by In addition, was the 1989 over get the
now battlefront, a strategically Shusha, of including Agdzhakend), This strength, easier then regards as power Kalbajar militias During
this
out Armenians confirmed, itself well territories’
the while belong generally they involved the Moscow Council of report) thanks Soviet entire in as emer
a city army. as from
next Kho this last and had and and Kal the the the the its in to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
61 OSW REPORT 5/2020 62 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‘occupied (the so‑called (there Armenia territory its of 14% around of control lost Azerbaijan Armenia, As the Azerbaijan’s were with The overall number of Azerbaijanis who wereThe overall forcedtoleave numberof theirhomes was estimated at around 750,000 around at estimated was 92,5% Baku Data 1993 December In resentative much text the turned the president, nians were killed in total in killed were nians the Armenians the figure is estimated at around 400,000 around at estimated is figure the Armenians the has lan, in the period from 1988 to 1994 up to 11,000 Azerbaijanis and 6000 Arme and 11,000 Azerbaijanis to up to 1994 from 1988 period the in baijan attempt assistance authorities small source. only countthe‘occupied territories’,withouttheformer NKAO). Thisincludes ence ceasefire estimated Azerbaijanis, Kalbajar of the on of wounded. usually of exclaves changed
was Armenians
SSR. this
into According to estimates which most researchers regard as reliable,as regard researchers whichmost estimates Accordingto
their the the mediation n attack an lost territories’; the which an attempt Heydar report). in
in former overall In addition, forces the and talk agreement control state, unrecognised Bishkek the its Baku which by
A few OSCE in material Lachin) about 20%, Minsk and were the suffered Azerbaijani on oblast Aliyev Aliyev, number of the usually over
were including thousand last
Russia, to Ganja, the Protocol) Minsk end in (armistice) Group. recover the and and its decided Armenian a more losses authorities declared on , a huge did Nagorno of round while and only unrecognised
seven the which two Group,
the victims not began people A second five was at Kalbajar) 30,000 Azerbaijanis CIS advantageous exclave partially territory to loss Yerevan up around come. districts
which ‑Karabakh closer whole (this would offensive
start signed and see the another in of during on
document Baku the the Appendix 2). Despite located group number both negotiations came the US$60 billion. (Agdam districts ties points Nagorno of have ( by raions conflict CSCE
a retreat. the which offensive sides representatives feared offensive. Republic position with into also posed on some to Armenian ) to Minsk and was that (Jabrayil, ‑Karabakh no the went force Russia, includes one took differ and that
which small more The initial Fuzuli) The situation threat a failed. then on together territory and million),
h country’s The Group missing. place 20,000 Armenians (the authorities on 12 May 1994. the the depending SSR. initial the than 9%, signed; counting were Qubadli, the
frontline In mid (see enemy as of Republic in (which to Russian made
of well Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan
Kurds; April 1994. while for while statement organised successes
the the the this was ‑March as as on would up Zangi on main exist Azer later than they new was five laid rep the not the the its in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
‑Azerbaijani ‑Karabakh ‘independence Azerbaijan This was possiblebecauseof The first way were was Budapest, In February 2004, H. Aliyev) were initiated.Therewere alsorelatively contactsbetween frequent was, It Before Low non its borders, theformer Shaumyan districtanda partof resulted to ticipant these tiations the trict played from lapped ganda and Gradual escalation of tensions (2003–2016) tensions of escalation Gradual sides civil dents carried claims increase, war ‑governmental the in to ‑intensity conflict (1994–2003) conflict ‑intensity societies. of taking were the initiatives were
in Azerbaijan. an active
to the become with the however, out taking when between in from Armenia) serious destruction. 7.5% Ramil conflict brief at the Azerbaijan recorded (and under President place and summits, times of a spontaneous both This referendum’ programme. of one
role renewal see Safarov, the was lo – also
tensions the low a hostages). all was during They the organisations and process very of states Appendix 2). former in the along presidents accompanied
This H. Aliyev’s the ‘frozen’; including SSR aegis ‑intensity this a gradual to could close, time of an Azerbaijani the were ‘occupied broke slightly a period
(these the was, regard; was fighting thelackof After NKAO As a result of act. NATO have along within this
demarcation building the held on of out the illness limiting from that, are conflict, was
and
been they was the Armenia by OSCE Partnership the territories’), in 2016 at in 1991). Key lesser eyesight. the characterised forces: thepositionsof mediatory greater an area the both one the some not demarcation helped officer provoked and their areas West of Minsk number especially end hand, entirely ere – degree it
states. line the the and Azerbaijani state was anti similar In addition, to Summit (who where of presidential contacts for (including murdered Azerbaijan a result Group. organise
by June 2003. assumed ‑Armenian In addition, structures of true, Peace by either was line anti
in theformer Khanlardis the these in a lively in 2001 the size as between born In 1999 (but soldiers of ‑Azerbaijani Nagorno training the side, the military
an Armenian exchanges that the incidents campaign first (Kocharyan located A series and also first propaganda in 1977 incidents peace US early (for or the direct were years both recovering ‑Karabakh could outside it). courses Armenian diplomats incidents Nagorno more north stage process in started of of under propa states’ killed. nego both what after
have over
inci and fire par on in in of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
63 OSW REPORT 5/2020 64 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‑Armenian Yerevan (activities (he August 2008, was weapons warlike Madrid However, uponhisarrival inBaku, hedidnotgo toprisonbutwas pardonedby Hungary, 2012 August In November 2008, 2007 November In Ilham janis recordedincidencesof ingly frequently in resolving the the the the BTC posed from both backed became an enemy at the state’s development downed der continued dier’s of dents
a way this
conflict. president was parties outside constantly and the
the
wages). of turn Aliyev’s integration format a by report
rhetoric. Armenia, much became granted
Principles, an Armenian oil capital and 7 were
Armenian which the on was Moscow figure relations
to of to pipeline of Its the
exchanges
of August 2014 Russia rise. Nagorno (which He more the and
presidency.
transferred rising. the
main
more Armenians). and of indicated Safarov, which international enemy’s an apartment was was
Azerbaijan with conflict
and Appendix 2). They
conflict trilateral
the diaspora). assertive (the latter other see started and assumptions
generated firmly also While needed. ‑Karabakh helicopter Ankara, ended the
OSCE
of escalated
pedx 2). Appendix territories); who the
alone
welcomed cities. that His fire, were solidifying to zone).
established. throughout 2013 to On 12 November 2014,
talks with and
and – BTE
Azerbaijan Minsk affairs aspiration On the was had
but take the including and
that an international close After After
Russia – conflict that
the At the are gas
in (inaugurated it sabotaged authorities been in promotion, the number as proved and
three Group (see signing to parallel – para still other this was pipeline that, shootingatenemy positions);sabotage
a national After initiative
This, concluding sentenced along was same finally
to from Sargsyan, the valid ‑state failure, flying stages: tensions impossible hand,
complete presented 18 soldiers amounted
by to of in the main
recognised the time the were
the and today
turn, consolidate a shared artillery Azerbaijan; (which by scandal)
along in hero Azerbaijan’s Georgian
it Azerbaijani both sniper
normalisation
Aliyev ‘Karabakh
the text the to paid the a framework around was activated, increased (these
his by
to
life
to 22 were proposal a the summit sides also peace number of (shelling declaration). separate his connected crowds and shootings
punishment
his and
imprisonment the demarcation ‑Russian power, see
the received (15 were are killed outstanding increased ‑Armenian then act clan’s
process. military Medvedev – report). the Baku’s the
conflict the of of of
from as the of
agreement
altogether, to Armenian for
honoured main the people fatalities
power so‑called with (increas heroism
Turkish
Azerbai support issue In 2009 resolve war which
policy forces It pro heavy there. presi After their zone line. text bor the
sol
in in in in in of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
The four the According toreportsfrom The clashes The introduction which with the 100 fatalities Following In 2015, really a seriousattemptata response months not responsibility mediaries: main north fighting, the positions used every kind of flict fighting, from likely Stepanakert, States On 2 April 2016 allow for and an offensive side sified denied of Stable instability (2016–20) instability Stable
an average yet (to a limited region with
text two (in the it its included was by reached at of 2016 was Azerbaijani oilindustry. The totalnumberof Azerbaijan a greater activities
shelling to in ‑day war (2–5 April 2016) war ‑day directions, of the the least that decreased, blocked ended the
southern on an attempt this and while Martakert Moscow of of four Armenian of 77 soldiers
the the
Armenian there over violent the Baku,
of several extent) report
armamentavailable: tanks, heavy artillery, rocket launchers (see on 5 April an essential – ‑day American the
to territories a mechanism by proposed level managed a dozen northeast settle Nagorno only were the gained which Armenian Russia, war
area), clashes to and hundred Defence air main from were break Blitzkrieg shelling to already
thanks the and forces. Appendix 2). presence cases ANI Armenian Research Centre, which were not had rise introduction and position a to occupied ‑Karabakh which text eoe 2016 before broke conflict and killed, and the slightly or of side adopted Ministry, wounded again had of to
of toretake Nagorno The Azerbaijani ceasefire of test several indispensable – Russian southeast.
ceasefire Russian did
threatened in
out. to Azerbaijani this while in 2017. by on the the withdraw unquestionable alter
not (in the a tactic After report). The Azerbaijani of Armenian (on both its the hundred Armenian (up region. mediation, both
control Russian mediations. want the own violations Armenian
This Baku having to Hadrut to of sides frontline civilian a few Since 0 incidents 100 terms
to victimsincludedaround attack harassing sides). escalation mediator side proposed such claimed forces, ‑Karabakh). Bothsides peacekeepers: lose defence
succeeded accused tensions hundred then, per threatened area) by Russia side (the ‘Lavrov targets accusations targets, its As a result army to the day; attacking in that the initiative its tensions by was lost and line one other the again in in the
undertook advantage. have metres. connected Armenian in it 7 combat more yet 14 (and the the another
conflict. to see halting was United in of inten inter them plan’, daily. most been shell have first con
and not the the the the in ‑ ‑
65 OSW REPORT 5/2020 66 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (see Appendix 2). Interpersonal incidents ing recorded tain team at present agreed sides). between hopes in that Armenia, per started (February 2020) which both Aliyev day). contacts sides However, to Baku the Since and take situation between would has Pashinyan autumn 2018 place they after invested work has both on amount a few the together calmed in societies in months demarcation Dushanbe and the to 20–30 per down new the to are of prevent consolidation Armenian
almost again. practically in line etme 2018, September day any This complete in on leader. further spring 2019, average non is of related
‑existent. Pashinyan’s peace, At a meet incidents (on both it to new was and cer ‑ ‑
(and it remainsunclearhow many of (Moscow The framework for conflict resolution. The Madrid Principles resolution.The Madrid conflict for The framework At the APPENDIX 2. APPENDIX The OSCE The OSCE will 116 115 114 France, Russia, andtheUnitedStates, isresponsiblefor theNagorno nor referred the tions time, to be taking peace peoples), upon flict lateral States) bring between and their as and sive cially of To read Armenia The first
domicile). a consequence parl.europa.eu main rity sion sion see
territorial the administrative be has resettlement over
took their even of the same those back process. ( its meetings). FFM text maintained dominated later states to to report 116 the more always descendants forced and own or ) Minsk Minsk place of to the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno Surrounding Azerbaijan of Territories Occupied the to be
hypothetically.
independence as and time, the requiring and this presidents the escalations Azerbaijan about based the by . integrity
relocations initiatives), Since The peace process status the that report). the in status quo status refers the Group Madrid Group, of ethnic The ongoing (see right periodically,
OSCE its space in
on it large return at understand
course, would the from should the ‑Armenian of the the special took of to least 2008 of and of peoples
which during Principles. the
groups There
future, Armenia the
parties as principles states, main but tensions. place
to before 1987 both
be mission final. conflict be and the leading and to in talks settlement at and interested was is self the made text the status quo ante of interpret states earlier equal as significant to Russia no of 28 February 2005: and therefugees, internally displacedpersons
‑determination – various turn Azerbaijani war, Nor established did none refrain
included of started more role up
on
Azerbaijan, of 1988 rights agree would not this these do years in has the of in of of Soviet they fact).
formats prevent
six
‘occupied from returning report); principles –
the (Armenia (see demographic the been that in
and other
have has primary and in in 1992 Appendix 1). guarantee the sides Also, Minsk Union, drastically the any Report of the OSCE Fact OSCE the of Report the the been trilateral
territories’ were to the Armenian Helsinki 114 actors especially threat
considers
self settlement
to massive most include and thus, ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh and outbreak impossible Group elements, their within applied ‑determination different changes
that (Iran, Azerbaijan after is active summits, or any Final the
co‑chaired former populations another forced the while ( use the 1992–94 war, NK territorial whose the attempt the ways of of ‑Karabakh (dialogues ) popularly Act mediator ‑Finding Mis ‑Finding , for ceasefire occurred
www.euro of the the conflict United (see under places migra
a long multi (espe force, came
legal mas integ war con the by of to 115 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
67 OSW REPORT 5/2020 68 OSW REPORT 5/2020 • • • • • • These The first, 118 117 Principles France, isations, release issued to first ber 2007 general occasions
the Aliyev Armenia 9 March 2019, Press Statement pendently resolving in detailed ation them sation A corridor An interim The return The right International Future territories’) peacekeeping former a legally and time December 1996, conflict are on 10 July 2009 in Statement (of course self on 9 March 2019) Russia, way) for and including
Europe, in unpublicised issues). as kept in by determination the
have Security places repeated by ‑governance; Prime binding Madrid. follows:
their of both the conflict by www.osce.org. its by representatives linking of status
to this Baku by all
10 July 2009, and been OSCE distance
the Minister the operation). of and and security on the the the current internally does the (Nagorno
readily many residence; the authorities expression Minsk territories Co Co‑operation The above which for referenced control Armenia co‑chairs
- at not version from European Chairs Pashinyan United occasions Nagorno of 118 the www.osce.org. refers Group exclude recommended ‑Karabakh’s version guarantees
these
the and of displaced G8 Summit of
to the Co of to in ‑mentioned final surrounding
States stipulations. of in of , Azerbaijan; that the representatives of documents - The Organisation as
Europe, Chair ‑Karabakh, Union, these Nagorno OSCE
will Armenia the
in the differences overall a basis self legal Representatives Azerbaijan’s a shared countries Minsk (i.e. the Minsk ‑determination
Minsk Groupat (i.e. a referendum); persons icuig – (including principles 3 December 1996, but in they from status Иссабонский ‑Karabakh; for Group elements L’Aquila. and that Nagorno agree , also providing
the Group The Organisation for statement resolving co‑chairs territorial and of exist Azerbaijan. OSCE on of
with Security of (although was
Nagorno was
the Armenia other refugees between (for 117 t is it документ www.osce.org. ‑Karabakh Lisbon the were
to Upcoming presented
a meeting Since guarantees integrity take Madrid and example of the by sue – assumed international and Summit
‑Karabakh
announced them for place the Co‑operation usually the to conflict 1996 года then
Azerbaijan Security Meeting Principles as return in Minsk within (the ‘occupied
presidents to on 29 Novem which the regards in the
the of in
principle , and the of on The Organi its
future a security through and took in
Madrid to have President a more Group) parties for
borders). Co organ to Europe, many press their accept ‑oper more place inde the for of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
‑step’ solution ‑step’ ‑Petrosyan The main The fact would which would comeinparallelwiththewithdrawal of which 120 119 might earlierandformed thebasisfor twoidentified optionsfor resolving theconflict tion, their trol, the that that Baku and Yerevanand Baku forces be gress about an agreement a process a synthesis of and states, sides would bedivided upwithintheframework of excessive expectations andthelackof elements The readiness In the agreed 24 January 2018, 26.8% expect 23.5% ние was residents flict ance tinue. solution. end Stepanakert – were which on the leaders’ in be
this, и политика’ the decrease carried from in assumed among which of
assessment in ‘Общественное the the that Armenia deceived those Nagorno
to presented of ‘К international upon the desire obstacle in 1998) the вопросу see one peace
resolve the Armenia’s real out
these war boththeseoptionswithstrongly articulatedsecurityguarantees, surveyed fear of can form could , Azerbaijani the unification www.kavkaz then in the and , after in ‘occupied hand, that of Kavkazskiy to conflict
summer 2017) by ‑Karabakh process, о be of Hrant as turn, break Nagorno principles main and/or единстве of President risk to восприятие . it is result to
elite
the losing in it Each an agreement exploited the
a ‘security implementing the the Armenia allowed Mikaelian, out community of which limited. adversary with foresaw ‘occupied text settlement) - ‑Karabakh’ Uzel, uzel.eu. territories’.
in parties in conflict side’s and violent renewed Levon side и разделении power. Armenia, that it forced a rebellion conflict карабахского remain of 28 January 2018, and
will on them as preferred. the Ter
time, Admittedly, fear zone’ the that the
the an effective in 1997. him be social released who author ‑Petrosyan Thus, remains territories’
should in military NKR treating possible report). while to willtomake any concessions). of is has the to valid other the This НКР around regards may maintain
resign the complete lack of trust between trust of lack complete the of believe initiating by конфликта protests the in 42.5% think a report status Madrid The first become 119 и Республики www.kavkaz the provide to January 2018, option today to the hand, not
static The Madrid action). (see these expression compromise In this resolve NKR’s
that
the Armenian (Nagorno were political to elite take entitled the of pressure over (February 2020) (which в Армении former that Nagorno thispeaceoperation,which and Principles an internal was any
elements full that main was (the positions Nagorno the transferred the (as was - situation, the uzel.eu. Армении. a large independence ‘Societal the the conflict in there
kind preferred text the instrument same next of this Principles would NKAO. current number on
и НКР’ ‑Karabakh’s of readiness package solution package share According five regard ‑Karabakh the of had this has perceptions based steps – Azerbaijan (and Общественное
factor years activity – both situation case report). of be to , The already
as been Kavkazskiy by held generated the on ‑Karabakh) is Baku’s of setting a compromise
a result are to (the research 120 (for more increases Yerevan – peace sides evidence with para
‘step for to possible this
In addi by of no in will would status reach the ‑state’s
until been report both both resist as talks; con
fact pro мне ‑by Ter Uzel, are con con up of it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ,
69 OSW REPORT 5/2020 70 OSW REPORT 5/2020 The OSCE Minsk Group and its achievements its Groupand Minsk The OSCE At that Armenia The OSCE 124 123 122 121 Nagorno Italy Russia, in ment members rial manent isation, in Europe soonafterthey (CSCE)on 30 January 1992, hadgainedindependence. more the take tiatives take process – although advantage sia other This The Bishkek The so‑called This addition Мoscow 2009, OSCE ceasefire Kyrgyzstan. parliamentary put ing ing to to ‘Group’. to basis – simultaneously) in group Council its place was respect influence which interested things, advantage forward very the was body time
and as
own see which forum ‑Karabakh but and the in or a certain also closely something was was Minsk Group. in the of was also the to the the in to the came claims meeting interests the The real wants
first Bishkek Minsk, Azerbaijan reached the ceasefire of p. 146.
the initially Assembly, include
be finalised that Helsinki helped next for situation United with the by end CSCE in counter more 124 current for Group chair Azerbaijan, into representatives of
means that organised the maintaining to driving Republic, Protocol, the
the by the parts the n the In called provisions which
ensure into was Russia it
‑balance the in force Kremlin. the Belarus, States, CSCE’s peace NKR precise, of
conference and on 24 March 1992. during to the had joined ‘parties force Russian
the of situation the account on
on 4–5 May 1994 the to prestige become Armenia South worked months also
on 12 May 1994.
final this 123
OSCE that participate to some are its talks ceasefire for group. as В. Казимиров,
the to its to Finland, the by the the Federal Caucasus. this gave document way well appendix). the the Minsk of hard West initiate
and of
meetings Vladimir (see
only was share took an international involved Conference meeting by status quo status conflict’ – preceding
agreement conflict to Azerbaijan, in as to its the after Assembly, documents Conference, selling was
the the achieve, changing taken Moscow Armenia place signed Germany, separatist
name in it the Мир Карабаху Мир formally came peace The first next
121 (for
Kazimirov, working in 1992–93. Yerevan The initial in resolution collapse itself, .
in
in as at weapons The decision the wanted Russia, from
process to that the on the Budapest organisation parts more
it but Nagorno Rome. the initiated Armenia into and Russian the as had Security
Russian were and Italy, Nagorno soon of ceasefire well conference
to
meeting talks (and
the out newly [Peace of on Azerbaijan, an international Stepanakert which strengthen 122 signed in 1994, ‑Karabakh statement after as process who In addition to by
MFA Soviet this Sweden the still as
diplomats a February 1995 the The composition (Russia four
both and for a third the and to ‑Karabakh and established collectively has) represented earlier appendix). has
which Union).
ceasefire Russia bodies: Nagorno of establish name its unrecognised will was the Republic. treated sides, Co‑operation have real
party. the who been and position was the states parliament was the to instruments primarily peace periodically meant
‑Karabakh], were Ministe and (albeit obligation the Turkey. group’s France, CIS among signed, changed
taking organ that agree peace On this a per body, by CSCE/ work Inter Rus the ini tak the not of to of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
The group These what 126 125 The greatest achievement of the Minsk Group is the formulation of the of formulation the is Group Minsk the of achievement The greatest It is Igor Baku, In December 1994, ion its ralism need mechanism – taking diplomaticinterventions. However, asa collective body, whose members the tion the the Minsk for principles for resolving the conflict which have been accepted by Baku Baku by accepted been have which conflict the resolving for principles large local borne CSCE an intermediary aegis als, still crisis of on, duties date and Yerevan.and
At this
Armenia Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk Andrzej Ambassador ary 1995. control, that OSCE’s foreign the including with holds Popov undoubtedly was was ‑scale authorities). to
happened. of situations – were Yerevan, states by include in first
international the the summit assigned one agreed three this it reacts and Group Chairperson military as disputing minister
responsibility and today OSCE. are formulate specialised
the under regard another The group reporting the Andrew and permanent currently Azerbaijan on between to such establishment also In 1997 decision would (February 2020). at to
In August 1995 in Stepanakert any action the the level, a Polish
(as well the community true more as a shared intermediary). , ‑in Schofer. The Organisation disturbing CSCE entity, aegis on was
become the has the format for (February 2020) its ‑Office are has that, co‑chairs: the are detail. made outbreak final also sides diplomat, the as Summit of also taken namely position, situation held of the where thanks
to Nagorno of the dominated
managed for
structure the to 126 create peace It covers (the representative organised).
signals the participation for (meetings
co‑chairs, place the
His co‑ordinate of France, position Meanwhile in Security
the he Ambassador peace the to
‑keeping the it in Budapest conflict main ‑Karabakh meets the represented OSCE, works Minsk by in to the the of four by and
develop Nagorno issuing
process.
Russia work the It has of office at conflict summits preparation which Western ‑day Co‑operation with
was more forces personal of Group, a lower the conflict 125 Minsk
of
Andrzej the peace the also is started war and statements established. CSCE an effective representatives
‑Karabakh pays Moscow, by the slowly located area operating CIS, Minsk between which states, Group in 2016 – created ‑related Stéphane level, in the
process representative Minsk its was regular Europe, of and which Kasprzyk, activities in United
peace in
Group’s in
including was fearing wanted of unexpected working and a platform Tbilisi, since 1994. www.osce.org. Group, mediation the under This the and should
activities. the is Visconti, visits decided on 1 Janu propos under States. under of end heads it opin func
man who that
plu can the the his
no be as of to at is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
71 OSW REPORT 5/2020 72 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Yeltsin somedissidentcircles).Russia’s(apart from goal was tostopthecollapseof Armenia, As mentioned with was were 127 Russia For Independent initiatives by the Minsk GroupCo‑chairs Minsk the by initiativesIndependent its importance – not issued reason in mediator. in to process, In the early phase of the conflict, which took place in what was still the still was what in place took which conflict, the of phase early In the keep Soviet be as atives. of effective on over edge a) Russia a) Soviet period, Nagorno period, Soviet Both
become Armenia a short this a network less permanent baijan building that relinquish the 1994
the Baku of unwilling its Union, a declaration has, The first presidents effective appendix). the of
the and reason – although influence transportation intervention
essential) The Kremlin’s the period involved and Russian from separatist and region, up
armistice under
of but earlier, Russian co‑chairs. the went Yerevan, to its
Azerbaijan, than of personal the but of when accept
in
individual them position (or even Nagorno to
initiatives in as the partner time that very the
Baku, national also Moscow the of the Federation
and aegis this advantage of dated ‑Karabakh was an internal issue for the Kremlin. the for issue an internal was ‑Karabakh
At the becoming they beginning Russia’s Moscow, (see ‑Karabakh beginning, because Yerevan connections region. result
Caspian
within ceasefire. for together failed, increase it)
of initiatives
would diplomacy. the made of back
same them. the and
of privileged that Russia main in this and which
it in the
CIS. over
Stepanakert its to its Zheleznovodsk oil the take been changed with time,
this time Since September 1991, conflict that Western Nursultan long Minsk
and which The culminating effort text
time in also This on led respect the aspiring
it should ‑lasting included the gas position. that of the has and to
wanted an important to to majority war Group, it
affected
this South in onto partners an armistice not involve role undertook – then developed moment included the Nazarbayev was be to report dominance allowing met North of the global However, to
play called and Caucasus, when
also of its intermediaries. the the maintain
point institutions in
Caucasus. their strategic Russia the has leaders and a very
an example bilateral CSCE markets. (or in the quasi Presidents to any that
role of become of the determined political increase there, Minsk
of
these Moscow
other in has Kazakhstan good ‑peace a monopoly was Armenia, the of next interests – the relations
its of For focused
case as agreed efforts knowl one 127 Group actors
of
peace elites Boris parts force main their initi well
this
the Azer did the of of to ‑ ‑ ‑
‑Georgian Armenia which would was would whether will 128 The first initiative took place in autumn 2008 in place took initiative The first It turned In the interest norms readiness the that the tion ples). proposed Moscow’s second independent attempt to resolve the conflict took place took conflict the resolve to attempt independent Moscow’ssecond independently Such Sargsyan between by but by between been Group and ever, eral dev, after the four the after As a result, the report).
representatives ceasefire
it is peacekeeping
on between to meetings Aliyev in in
after made conclusions This
most following Minsk
would also of have them. Georgia, and the quite and the both Moscow
and decided the international out war. to the
was
Kremlin’s have and towards two likely stressing formed Russian its (see resolve establishment Ankara evident Group include that Azerbaijan), sides June 2011 ‑dayin April 2016 war
took Armenian On 2 November the
, Sargsyan readiness which years, included each
the to and be can forces Moscow first place of to part into take an agreement supplemented the
side main that
and
view, the
be Ankara the
obtain ‑Turkish time Armenia
Moscow made two attempts to resolve the resolve to attempts two made Moscow illustrated law meeting document
and conflict consideration, of
drawn this (with had
signed it Yerevan. three to the leading text
although the was was (references a new of using
use security protocols some step a ready
normalisation (whose a Caucasus
of in resolution the
countries taking unable in from and a declaration military
by
this Barvikha, Moscow’s
since its 128 after security Kazan, role on mutual by participation peaceful were
Azerbaijan. they
Up mandate
report). plan the guarantees and Prime the individual the
namely were to they the 1994 of signed until
parallel force the Stability participation of
the elements overcome of brought (a ‘roadmap’) concessions, the architecture
determination
near
had Minister the of also the means, parties in Russian The Kremlin’s January 2012,
in as
Group the abroad. autumn 2009 Armenian ceasefire
region,
witnessed Nagorno which of elements
Moscow, t appears It from made , the intensification and Madrid no shortly
that the the stated based
mediation co‑chair Recep tangible in Cooperation
Russia). of to It remains presidents or they in had to aversion Russia
the ‑Karabakh to
Russian ‑Turkish (see the
Presidents to the Principles to after settle of that Russia’s on political been nine be that Tayyip expressed
the impose
defend the peace Madrid region, the signed of results; and It is progress main which the
the
pointed of more Aliyev that regulation. the soldiers unknown rules of relations.
Platform,
interven Erdoğan contacts Turkey), conflict
text possible Russian
will process. conflict,
conflict its its
(which
Medve Russia, Minsk jointly Princi which exists led trilat
their of how own own and and and had out this in to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
73 OSW REPORT 5/2020 74 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (the 2008–09 Again, with 131 130 129 Moscow’s Both Baku ing its in intermediary mination ited towards time to theabove the to presence flict forces for and madeitthemainmediatorandessentialparticipantincon and thatof 2016 authorities sion, ducted on conviction context, even cost to ever n aur 2015 January In In addition,
in the (see W. Górecki which territorial idents, a manifestation
the the less conclusion settlement the Azerbaijan’s informally the the though in 2008–09 journalistic the regaining the in future, no bear unrecognised
by peace interested region generated the Putin, the unblocking attempt next main the of to peace goal Prime that , and
131 ‑mentioned change intheprioritiesof Russian a trilateral Nagorno control conflict positions this parts conflict attempt . Aliyev process losses because it was reason and that of process). soldier a society control this plan recognised stormy Minister would
enforced the governments and of to reports
‑Karabakh in and to this held imposing state’s the time in
peacekeeping ‘force converged: summit the of was Nagorno zone – “finally” in 2016 allowed could Sargsyan. protests of could appendix). of stationed
(a part the over transport certainly
process a series
region This
systemic
its announced Russia its and …, Medvedev Moscow’s the took four
it op. cit. op. close be the have possibly instruments throughout strengthening the
as ‑Karabakh concrete It confirmed Russia of analytic at place settle sides in
‑day seen (see the crisis’ ‘occupied
could an area military a of and Armenian Minsk not Moscow. been routes ties forces,
in meetings
the interest war). , position the to and in St to on the 1 July 2015, as go and the be Petersburg solutions discourse
the peace’ take the main the this a formal conflict, of Group and base the Republic beyond West – country. seen would would territories’ 129 strategic
It is decisions resistance Russian public intensive of the occasion, of Foreign
in with deploying text at More www.osw.waw.pl.
failed
Russia’s in Gyumri possible both on 20 June 2016 the supported initiative M. Falkowski, have including allow on the
and CIS Medvedev’s as 130 of theWest, which was becom of opinion representatives evidence cost responsibility.
relations
the the this the (these Moscow Minister once Madrid mission – that and murdered ‘shuttle been it but position it Vienna
Russian faced parties, of
that ‘Lavrov plan’‘Lavrov report), to in security should Russia
again; blamed the Russian the elements, too gathering ‘Protests impose the Summit Moscow of and Washington with Principles, declaration Armenian an diplomacy’ Lavrov, from other high United
was were Russia’s peace peacekeeping including
and on is there Moscow of In this both guarantees in the of 16 May 2016 mediation, a “natural” its connected Armenia’s a political
co‑chairs this
Armenia Armenia which together referred who came three process, States – ). agenda be states. deter family, How with occa new that con one pres the vis for
in to as ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Krbk ad h Lci crio wih ol oeae ne te protec the under operate would which corridor Lachin the and ‑Karabakh The US’s engagement in the conflict’s settlement at that time appeared to be to appeared time that at settlement conflict’s the in engagement The US’s was the fear of both presidents – especially Kocharyan – that any concessions any that Kocharyan – especially presidents – both of fear the was h Uie Sae’ ot nesv atvt a a itreir i the in intermediary an as activity intensive most States’ United The Iran’s participation in the peace process and the possibility of allowing a dele allowing of possibility the and process peace the Iran’sin participation cele the with coincided and DC Washington in place It took Aliyev).Heydar meeting were kept secret.However, basedonleaks, it isknown thatthediscus DavosGenevaseverallocations.and times,in met other more among in meetings between the presidents. The most probable reason for this failure failure this for reason probable The most presidents.between the meetings in abovewerepresented plan the on discussions the which during summit, next month break -month a 16 also was There place. take not did continued, been have to Minsk the of co- chairs (the a breakthrough of hope some Despite summit. the of issues the In addition, Nakhchivan. and Azerbaijan of part main the tween un the for plan to intended also was The project Baku’scontrol). to return to were territories’ (the ‘occupied States United the and Russia France, of torate this of The proceedings Florida. West,Key in April 2001 early in place took Group) Minsk the of a co‑chair as acting then was States (the United ticipated Colin State of Secretary which in meeting, important most their KocharyanRobertand time (at that Azerbaijan and Armenia of presidents the possible escalation of the tensions. the of escalation possible peace and democracy among them, as well as a result of lobbying bypeace anddemocracyamong them,aswell theenergy asa result of between summit first the orchestrated Clinton, Bill President of participation moment come, Moscow will make another attempt to implement it. implement to attempt another make will Moscowcome, moment lay, first and foremost, in maintaining a stable situation and preventing any preventing and situation a stable maintaining in foremost, and lay, first blocking of the transportation routes, including the railway connection be connection railway the including routes, transportation the of blocking NATO’s anniversary.presidents of US’s initiative,both brations fiftieth At the by the opposition in Armenia). in opposition the by gation from theNagorno gation from Group talked about ‘significant progress’) and the initial announcement, the announcement, initial the and progress’) ‘significant about talked Group active the with Albright, Madeleine State of Secretary US the On 27 April 1999 b) The United States The United b) announced would threaten their power (the Key West Summit was criticised was SummitWest (the Key power their threaten would announced sector, which atthattime believed projects in theregion that noinfrastructure a self create to a plan included sions ofit eteet rcs to pae t h tr o ti century. this of turn the at place took process settlement conflict right the should today,and place in still is plan’‘Lavrov the that edged driven by a desire to assist newly independent states and spread the ideas of of ideas the spread and states independent newly assist to a desire by driven ‑Karabakh Republic tothetalks were discussed during In this situation, it should be acknowl be should it situation, In this ‑governing political body out of Nagorno of out body ‑governingpolitical Powell par Powell However, ‑ ‑ ‑ - ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
75 OSW REPORT 5/2020 76 OSW REPORT 5/2020 • • ‑Petrosyan, were within 132 Russia, Face many resolving idential not tain themselves tiative this until 2018. part process. Sadarak). Summits between and settlement could either
All of sonal 16 May 2016, 10–11 February 2006, no information, ister, presidents bajar, agreements, an agreement undertake
report). then of the both ‑to convened in occasions. be progress even
of
the the representatives and all, system, ‑face meetings between Armenia and Azerbaijan’sleaders and Armenia between meetings ‑face peace
states), Elmar the implemented while the the between with However
H. Aliyev The first peace CIS. of
took a partial (such on leaders However,
US conflict the
any however agreed a few process Serzh in However, point Mammadyarov, which under to place
point The most (Aliyev’s in process. conflict. “on place, were and other the monitor for the Vienna such breakthrough,
helped occasions nine before 1999). seven Kocharyan this Sargsyan the as operates eight to the leaders after unless great at the in these important part conflict
meetings format they unconditionally Their meetings President different Paris important determined aegis Aliyev after out incidents to assumed the majority of talks the did met reduce
proved of
(this in they high of and
(Armenia’s said various failure of
the
Azerbaijan Azerbaijan ‑Kocharyan over conflict not nine Later, took or role
were with initiatives
the Rambouillet. time
Ilham were level little to talks four the at 20 times. and tensions engage was of the the disputed place, OSCE of least multilateral effective
Kocharyan, called such
withdrawal periods. the
is ‑day given convened
was status implement took fulfil Aliyev the
media president dictated and any Armenian‑Azerbaijani In 2002 and in as meetings on to summits Minsk Key resolved war. in to place and the their h 1994 the mentioned points”. The Azerbaijani of was visible its met a halt; the Armenia that However, after deputy
West the
Nagorno
During by by own and forums, on: also of Group. conflict own with from 2008 a mechanism presidents
the the some the
held were (see Armenians progress ministers Summit, previously According as in n 1995 and
in sides nature Robert interested are time part this earlier, ‑Karabakh. place it 132 the ‑person in also including zone has
assigned Nakhchivan’s an important it h dialogue The of main had meeting of foreign was towards
to 2018) initiated in of foreign Kocharyan the
not and the at ceasefire from to with
summits for Armenia abandoned. the reached talks
their parties US the text leaked led peace those main
With affairs their pres min Ter Kal the did the ini per on on by of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
• ‑Karabakh (the latest Aliyev, The attempt The next The first 135 134 133 Economic mentioned ing meeting theelementsfor resolving theconflictwere onceagainreviewed, and to the development of the the the the ‘velvet peace). unlike pendently, politi Security building aegis should speeches over declared
Service
Service get 1 April 2019, ‘Пашинян
6 coe 2017, October 16 person supervision decrease two the Nagorno top the cians of the 134
135
Kocharyan participate
CIS position sides’ the
up
Conference). next of of to
that meeting as encounter “societies It was ‑in Forum), for
before, agreed Interfax Interfax revolution’
and earlier Summit mutual support Minsk
прямом в well ‑Karabakh ru.armeniasputnik.am. tensions to ‑Office
the few readiness both
change not by
agreed in as agency agency moment to and months took while
Group. in (that humanitarianco‑operationwas announced, inthehopeof a team
and
trust sides of
the as by a change establish in on in between эфире along the
of Armenia,
hence a part Президентский Вестник Президентский Вестник Президентский
Dushanbe the the Geneva. the place Republic Sargsyan, country’s to that
Nagorno (on a different
another spring 2018 would making Before раскрыл of took Pashinyan maintain Minsk conflict; format the
personal the in he on 22 January 2019 a channel of Ilham demarcation place
the Artsakh h presidents The work could a larger into
personal this
‑Karabakh was of on 28 September 2018. reformed подробности Group he of peace
the decisions Aliyev
on 15 February 2020 became meeting – reiterated
the the held had together meetings not occasion of ceasefire
and event – and , ,
talks. talks process
communication no. 44, no. 41, not speak representative on 29 March
and line. political is Azerbaijan” венской Armenia’s the that been
a separate was
6 March 2019. In addition to 12 March 2019. the Pashinyan this at Nikol agreed
on in Pashinyan was
format European prevent this affect it), first firmly Davos the
встречи leader a idea. system, confirmed. Pashinyan, level in para prime to
to and At that prepared during of between entity During
(during Vienna, opposed talked be further take to с
Union. ‑state’s used the
would he the Алиевым’ took organised from the minister,
stressed measures OSCE meeting and
inclusion the on
In addition, the arguments
a series
the who them, place under for incidents. Nagorno However, by continue
behalf. the Munich as , Vienna
future Sputnik, World Ilham Chair after need such inde
now that
dur and the the
of of to 133 ‑ ‑
77 OSW REPORT 5/2020 78 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (as mentioned August 2008, andwas aswell intendedtoincludethethreestates intheregion Azerbaijan‑US h possibility The The only exception Tehran They which would Minsk Nagorno In April 1993 Iran In April 2003 In the During it lifted. nuclear in this the tion, tives. posed process. participated inthepreparationsof for the‘occupiedfrom territories’. for halt baijan, after as those as Other initiatives and peace plans peace and initiatives Other seriously Russia January 2016, the talks next topic military and a number were another These
spring
the openly include Group – South although the (it took that Below deal ‑Karabakh few on Turkey). and received did establishment organised last were a few had Armenian of 1992, years, operations Turkish diplomats Turkish the
come had Caucasus, Turkey. Armenian supported earlier) rapprochement is
the quarter place of was that the in formally an overall Iranian states
been This international occasions, in was theCaucasus Stability three onto Iran
connection peace put US under the aegis of Iran of aegis the under the the after ‑century, was proposal,
that Heikki was concluded offered and
forward the offensive of Baku, foreign region. states uoen Union European process – participated the
the review a ‘security agenda did also bring but After Stepanakert rebuttedtheseideas, US
and ‑Azerbaijani Talvitie idea did to of its not organisations
other Tehran minister opposed in 2003 which ‑led all – peaceplan,which was intended to thefirst
its was
about of the mediation a parallel and not during belong together as proposed these
increased these coalition’s system states
launched in region a force (he undertake the was offered
the this by to Kamal initiatives to was the initiatives.
negotiations
international Iran’s would the put and withdrawal have crisis , with entity’s the services for by and although became that Key the regional
its attack EU’s in forward Kharazi, Cooperation Platform which Prime Minsk the
also involvement, any Americans their between Nagorno West would first mediation become
were work Caucasus Special
and proposed new involved against they Minister holder were Group neighbours Summit: ambitions of during while support sanctions proposed
refused (Turkey). Armenian peace ‑Karabakh. Washington involved were
Representative held and services Iraq) (Iran) states’ of in even in peace the Erdoğan
see broken initiatives. this Russians – Baku, in the the (by after formats was (Russia, peak Ankara, Tehran. against In addi though as above). in which forces newly peace initia OSCE again Azer Over well and pro the the not off in of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
• • • h budget The which were 136 In the Representative 2004 In European in the resolution region, important tions to presented Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of theCouncil Parliamentary Assembly of for Several Simmons, Group). amounted established Security and Co‑operation in Europe in Co‑operation and Security
See Nagorno Nagorno ries through pendence, formally the plan to create an Azerbaijan/Nagorno create to plan the plan Maresca John the plan Goble Paul the bakh – chivan; the in prepared www.epnk.org ‘occupied years 2004–05, formed Peaceful Simmons (Armenia complex exchange At present, NATO
non a proposal within to ones to who ‑Karabakh. Armenia
Zangezur ‑Karabakh, remain office; for over the including ‑governmental the
for by held which established territories’. Settlement its conflict). peace . its declared €4.7 million. was for basis
the the rm 1995 from third part
would 1988 the the to in documents returning the Caucasus to alaetr seby f h Ognsto for Organisation the of Assembly Parliamentary plans unblock the
for while European of post Armenia, , borders – receive stage, parties In the
that which thus Azerbaijan, , right of the new a which
were
organisations until 2010.
the o 1996 to Azerbaijan the passing have Armenia’s and which to European ParliamentEuropean to the to regarding was Conflict
put and Union position, the Azerbaijan was Alliance have the Central lost Lachin
he forward status premised but thereby
lasted (Göran premised conflict of
representative
During its represented is
borders over a resolution it would called border the could financing Asia. the corridor would of from five Lennmarker’s in ‑Karabakh confederation ‑Karabakh a land
Nagorno an ‘associated discussed
Nagorno
one Secretary on on the 1990s. It was send get the and with out enjoy
(David
a 2016 May n exchange an granting of and
connection European the a large renew Finland
of , offices calling peace his ‑Karabakh Iran, in first ‑Karabakh a far
were: the a connection
corridor
turn, General’s Atkinson’s report, first Among ‑keeping filled report) railway see ‑reaching state’ seven project Nagorno
abroad); for to in
visits Per Partnership Map);
with pi 2019, April the a peaceful of (EPNK). by (it would situation the running districts Gahrton
and connec Special
territo of
Robert Minsk forces to ‑Kara Nakh most with inde
five the the . 136 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
79 OSW REPORT 5/2020 80 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Armenia, Azerbaijan within From nario of
Yerevan, is Baku’s the unacceptable
or (with borders
it possibly perspective, would ‘the of
highest be to recognise
the the best the former opposite possible to best
it unify
as NKAO – option
side. an independent status’ the Nagorno was as declared an autonomous to keep ‑Karabakh
state. for it); Nagorno
Clearly, while Republic entity Krbk – ‑Karabakh from
each within with
that sce ‑
The relative balance of forcesof balance The relative Armenia APPENDIX 3. APPENDIX The Nagorno which 138 137 h four The It should most in 2010, ing, military tion, tain the tial positions path moment neithersideisabletoresolve toitsadvan thisconflictmilitarily tage. First and foremost, the military potential has been shown to be of of be to shown been has potential military the foremost, and First tage. long guarantees large enough to assure a military victory for either army. either for victory a military assure to enough large moment. the for least at situation, political the than significance less architecture. ably of country. of Secondly, the difference in the two warring parties’ potentials is not yet not is potentials parties’ warring two the in difference Secondly,the data The The idea strengthand,inthecaseof
the фликте?’ Press report national ed. ation the and nature threat although range sections), Armenia of at likely
К. Макиенко Republic was
to 2018, development”. the the ( advantage Baku’s SIPRI be and the of dy a wih ok lc i Arl 06 hwd ht t the at that showed 2016 April in place took which war ‑day they report , Institute cited Kavkazskiy to to of ratified and victory intervene pp. 209–210 assumed first “occupation demarcation ‑Karabakh questioniscentraltobothBaku and Yearbook 2018. Armaments, Disarmament and International Security
the According Azerbaijan
a large any for is in occupy
while
dimension The conflict’s military оиаи бр: жы Кавказ Южный бури: ожидании В of ensures goal , a formal
this Моscow 2018 is for stage para
the Azerbaijan” possible understood in Uzel, Strategic that Appendix and is Azerbaijan’s that extent, moment early ‑state late 2007, line (in the
to of the 30 March 2018, 295). to by
Azerbaijan member arise,
Russia as reach any
future Azerbaijan’s security enough Studies, the (in this here was that comes while war, ensure victory.
north is it is hypothetical done Republic as it is such is the would it the report forces of mainly clashes: Routledge, defensive could still to
in 2016. in www.kavkaz of main
total the possible a defence has a commanding prevent
the the
referred not neutralised military from capitulation demarcation would of negotiate over
national
See “people [Waiting east Armenian pp. 185–187
allow Armenia the war. in ‘Кто
that - to uzel.eu. Armenia that, alliance it have Military Balance 2019 Military nature. as в итоге doctrine, Armenia
resembles of
for n turn, In
KM Armenia’s doctrine, military of Turkey security with the by (referred if
to the ). 137 Artsakh of
forces military
line such The author adversary, (the Collective natural fight победит
It states Storm: a part is them runs to would constantly
which should threat a need to Yerevan’s security would a straight for
fail,
and in the from в Карабахском advantage of
and conditions , also
this report, along Oxford them.
that
South
the
and their intervene. was faced not Indeed,
arose: used n existen an defend report a position just Armenia territory
Security it The Inter University a moun Caucasus], increas
ratified
In addi the chosen line would by an alter as prob
over SIPRI and the the the M кон in 138 B ), ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
81 OSW REPORT 5/2020 82 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (45,000+20,000). Azerbaijan Armenia Azerbaijan’smilitary potential Treaty Turkish with regard 140 139 BTR PM In the In recent Both 244 of to to the pared people; plex fighting fence has billion, guarantees, Cardom around and self of compared equalled In 2010 In 2019
300,000 around the Based or ‑propelled mortars, multiplerocket launchers(Grad,Smerch,Kasirga), the -82A, hydrocarbon just Pashinyan, US$435 million
and group armies theT makes officially case to Organisation, on 70,000 soldiers, Armenia or over Recoil blockade the Azerbaijan vehicles surface it US$3.16 billion S16 billion US$1.61 MT‑LB years of Article 2, to 2019. US$45 billion, in -72, and100of has of was US$4400 budget states, which
to are almost
3 million Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan size around Mortar both recognised Armenia’s
US$530 million ‑to similar and the of The number resources and if together (including of are the one ‑air and parties
60% in 2017). Turkey Matadors), Armenia states CSTO), e capita per Nagorno of stipulated 440 tanks System, inhabitants), missile
population the in and n 2018 in dollars. or theT of will the while in signed
defence sides with size, territory
have Azerbaijan US$4500 ‑Karabakh Armenia’s offer while BMP those figure Yet of -90S tanks respectively) andover 850 armoured (in 2019 systems falls ). the
an Agreement in 2019 as irrespective
140 the each (according in spent reservists and -1, h armed The the Armenia well
victim Azerbaijan spending (Baku Tochka of According an agreement was Republic of other e facto de as BMP per capita per
S15 billion US$1.55 amount Armenia
entire Azerbaijan, around as possesses, (Krug, Azerbaijan’s well (compared to around assistance -2 122mm controls a military on was Tactical eligible it is to
and as of Strategic NKR in 2020 national forces MB Osa, relies to that around ;
4.5% in the 210,000 plus that US$1.88 billion BMP “using and an announcement it attack GDP, as this is 74,500 km
to inhabited Strela, Azerbaijan for two Operational concluded Partnership of US$230 million. nominal only of the well 180 km 41,850 n 2017); in 152mm of -3, US$506 million is all
budget, includes
or their mobilisation for
Armenia
(MB). states’ to possible Azerbaijan as NKR aggression on as Igla, reasons increase well artillery the GDP 2 general by
and GDP or
around with in which disproportion means”. and spends 2 95 in 2019
Missile ca 10 Azerbaijani/ as Mutual in around was by the on of amounted including others). Turkey. a third BTR size, amounts made
by number security defence. the T systems, US$13.3 million case in 2018 in 2019 65,000 Support. on 25.3% (com -80A, Com 86% and state -55, de by of 139 ‑ ‑ ‑
(mainly Il-76) andover a dozentrainingaircraft (mainly (with The military potentials of Armenia Armenia of potentials The military Armenia’s Armenia’s Azerbaijan According 141 Most 2 Albatros 12 0 T 101 Buk) In addition, In addition, Bell 412) mum role in Israel). never beenusedbefore incombatanywhere intheworld, while in fighter launcher Since 2017 S-300PS) aswell as medium baijan and the Nagorno the and -24). and Mi as and 9M113M rockets (KM). around 150), system, ers). during mentioned As well In autumn 2015 rockets as its the in
Armenia 2 tanks, -72 and of of 4 launchers), presence is the aircraft, own the as
-1A a TOS also 200 armoured them
and flew together short air 4 to to Nagorno land sphere it four purchased According jet Azerbaijan Armenia’s
in over as 4 transport has MB, on
force also above, are Russia 6 Albatros possession ‑range ‑day 21 bombers and trainers, the well forces
of Azerbaijan), purchased
the
influence. has multiple modernised with Caspian ‑Karabakh Republic ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh has according Elbrus in shelled war as
Azerbaijani long to 15 Hermes 900 arsenal surface have addition -25 15 Su
fighting 62 122mm has ammunition, aircraft in 2016 KM, almost waters Syria
jet of ‑range which and (with ‑range surface to rocket its
(on loan) maximum a Il-76 transport trainers 2018 the Armenia conflict. from ‑to includes of fleet attack
Soviet T was attack vehicles he T three
it military 0 helicopters 100 (An-12 8 launchers) surface ‑air air and ships
launcher interpreted used on Convention
force aircraft an Avrobaza‑M missile and from 141 152mm aircraft, unmanned that also the -72s -54 forces ballistic and Israeli ‑to (KM; ‑to
of were 30 to has Caspian aircraft. ‑air and has
Russia
‑air missilesystems (Krug,Dvina, as (according Yak system 2 tanks 220 of (Su-24
self systems a signal on stationed MB and non at
four IAI missile -29 fighter 14 MiG ie T five -40). 50 helicopters missile the ‑propelled its (Ka-32, ‑littoral aerial estimates a Smerch Harop Tochka‑U (with Sea, Legal The state or
and with that disposal
According in 5 tanks) -55 electronic
five (Kub, systems Yak
the (KM) to Moscow states systems: Su-25 although Status vehicles Mi-2, drones, transport Caspian MB, -52) atitsdisposal, transport howitzers their multiple ehr – Pechora is also 16 at of
among
regards strictly (mainly (S Armenia Mi-8, to the
to and its intelligence Sea August 2017 - jets. (also has Iskander‑E it which number 300PT -29 18 MiG KM, Caspian 4 launch (some disposal. plays vehicles,
this forbidden. aircraft maxi a drones; others), rocket Mi-24, (KM). made Azer Mi-8
MB).
basin of and had has Sea, no its at ‑ ‑ ‑
83 OSW REPORT 5/2020 84 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (by different means) from Soviet Army warehouses located on both republics’ republics’ both on located warehouses Army Soviet from means) (by different zrajn tre t dsac isl fo Rsi ad h post the and Russia from itself distance to started Azerbaijan power, to came Azerbaijan of Front Popular the and Elchibey Abulfaz After The armies of Armenia and Azerbaijan – like all their state structures – were structures – state their all like Azerbaijan – and Armenia of The armies Following the Soviet forces military (the most the on agreements the division of BMP could it part in that claims MB NKR, the of equipment military the Discussing Russia as the main arms supplier to both sides of the conflict the of sides both tosupplier arms main the as Russia n ahet n 5 a 19) nr i i rtf te hre o te I. This CIS. the of Charter the ratify it did nor 1992), May 15 on Tashkent in offensive.summer its of establishment the for basis the formed which agreement, such important the Nagorno the on 14 Febru signed was republics, Soviet former the in armies national the beginning the at popular was that an interpretation to According territories. para the port started to emerge in early autumn 1992). Reports released by international support force air Russian and Armenia to arms Russia’sof bysupply proven from Armenia and Russia. Russian troops also supported Armenian forces in forces Armenian supported also troops Russian Russia. and Armenia from Nagorno in operations Armenian for and Armenia between relations the on more (for Armenia to belong formally by divisions of ‘unclear state provenance’, which in practice meant they came they meant practice provenance’,in state which ‘unclear of divisionsby gration structures. It did not sign the Collective Security Treaty (concluded Treaty Security Collective the sign not It did structures. gration ary 1990 (see the main part of this report) was the seizure of a large amount a large of seizure the was report) this of part main the (see ary 1990 ammunition and small arms such as bullets) which helped significantly during during ammunition andsmallarmssuch asbullets)which helpedsignificantly ammunition depotsin Agdam (around1000 railway carsoverall, withartillery post the over took Azerbaijan In spring 1992, helicopters. and aircraft units, 285 artillery as well as vehicles, fighting armoured of number a similar and Azerbaijan, and Armenia both to 220 tanks transferred Russia ary 1992), stopping the Azerbaijani army’sAzerbaijani the stopping Even early 1994. in attack Azerbaijan’sthough systems.missile ballistic systems,Elbrus self organisations stated that the Armenian offensive in February 1993 was manned during Armenia for Moscow’ssupport to led policy Baku’sforeign in change command. military Soviet the by authorised not was which of armaments on 20 Janu Baku of pacification brutal the for reasons the of one the 1990s, of weapons took they Initially, conflict. military of conditions under created ‑propelled howitzers, Konkurs and Shturm wire Shturm and Konkurshowitzers, ‑propelled 1, BMP -1, ‑state see the main part of this report). It includes T It includes report). this of part main the see ‑state 2 armoured fighting vehicles, 122mm and 152mm and 122mm vehicles, fighting BRDM-2 armoured and -2 ‑Karabakh conflict (see the main text of this report), which was which report), this of text main the (see conflict ‑Karabakh ‑Karabakh (information about this sup this about (information ‑Karabakh ‑guided anti ‑guided 55 and T and -55 ‑tank missile ‑tank Sve inte ‑Soviet -71 tanks, ‑Soviet ‑ ‑ ‑ (other At the Armenia were 8 of the SCUD‑B Ukraine). US$1 billion. Israel Russia Nagorno Russian prices(accordingtoSIPRIdata,thevalue of 32 rockets, ing next president,Heydar rise. received the talks the to to tinued transferred from but ber Gyumri CIS at a commission air surface century, of credit, defence ery
around Armenia US$100 million these largest defence a closed until and weapons its included According with transferred Russia amounted important turn work deliveries while ‑to also the jets. committee, until 2044. ‑Karabakh after receives four 2 April 1999), ‑air Baku US$1 billion Putin, transactions 27 Krug Collective to of 1999, amounted meeting remains systems did This The Russian at 84 in purchased comprised the of missile the to US$5 billion, intensified February 2020 of
not to 29%). (Elbrus) the exporters on President delivery to practically BTC SIPRI NKR,
in surface the T resume It can Lev lead it, Russia a smaller Su-30SM on 2 April 1997 with the the systems Security oil (it is Aliyev, would decidedthatthecountry formally jointhe Moscow to
at were data, -72 tanks, of Rokhlin. by of to Moscow military years pipeline class US$200 million). no most ‑to
included intervene
which 0 rockets. 200 representatives of (see any its Azerbaijan Aliyev also provided made all ‑air cost, and
the weapons and scale, weapons multi Treaty tactical talks 2013–17, did conclusions. of important the known missile Russian The details Moscow stated base
explains and 50 radar in 1994–96, its from 2008 estimated -29 fighter 10 MiG not main ‑task selling on began by of Armenia weapons (24 September 1993; BTE ballistic has to stop in 2017–18
that the while the the purchases stations. This that systems Federation text this fighter must permission of the gas weapons over By head Armenian BMP weapons supporting some
were this the Russia, to 2017. information state of the and the sales pipeline from missile with have
the -2 this with of In the value jets amount loans of (weapons their thesedeliveries amounted end to in infantry include
the purchase of
Russia. weapons was Armenia the report). In September 2018, provider been jets, to have the which 349 rockets,
to side systems weapons of 2019, of following were the Russian Armenia that value deliveries remain the
first as it weapon would aware). been was Turkey, in Armenian remained The first fighting well purchased source Russia it launched, and of case worth was decade to purchased together revealed Armenia
State explained to in a new as continue years at Azerbaijan Azerbaijan, and That purchases two were Armenia’s clashes estimated Israel the of domestic provided vehicles, another batches Duma’s side.
a mem of 40 Igla 65% it states S-200 while batch deliv from after with then
dur this con had and on by in of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
85 OSW REPORT 5/2020 86 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‘manage’ in in to maintaina balanceof countries moredependentonRussia anddevelop itsinfluenceandinstruments
conflict the South the
(with Nagorno Caucasus
Armenia ‑Karabakh The author would like to thank Aleksandra Głodek Aleksandra thank to like would The author for her assistance in collecting data for this appendix this for data collecting in assistance her for (which power In practice, intheregion. itwants tomake both
receiving would conflict).
them allow
at
preferential it, among other
rates) things,
by
its
aspiration to further
.
After van APPENDIX 4. APPENDIX Turkey The Nakhchivan within the within theSoviet statebeingestablishedatthetime, Nakhchivan would belong was with 143 142 Moscow In 1990, janis 5500 km nineteenth in 1970 treaties), which was restatedintheNAR’s 1998 constitution.The conflict forced the teeing to to pute leave laid lighted arated almost alltheethnic an autonomous and a protectorate see exclave’s continue city And Nakhchivan 31–34% Azerbaijan Azerbaijani the (it had claim of Azerbaijan – inhabited continued between Iran the the
in this Nakhchivan, from main the the the a mandate ² fact and , population to fall USSR, ethnic while to and onthe aboveAzerbaijan state(based Nakhchivan status – figures historical been century by belong is the Nakhchivan, text Kars of the and Azerbaijan also along there. Autonomous The Nakhchivan Republic primarily to
side, republic. the the Armenians). and rest Autonomous unrecognised part of were the rise; not in 1921. to to were 2.9%
including Armenians toleave (even inSoviet timestheirshareof population which Russian this they had name and a short after of It decided Azerbaijan. claims become of be in 1926
included Supreme the
been report). the to After used transferred made and sent by a few On their is Nagorno act country Empire, Russian and section inhabited for n Azerbaijani an However in Republic their to 93.8%, involved Armenia. the its the as amounts up the to continual months, in Soviet this ‑Karabakh a troops maintenance collapse whole cede around respective de facto de two basis, by with Yerevan Nakhchivan to area’s Armenia’s (NAR) by decided in and Armenia’s of Soviet a different this Unlike into to the that the Republic Nakhchivan around Turkey. decline,
64–68% of guarantor around in 1989 historical NAR territory
the population proportions the is Nagorno guberniya ‑mentioned two Soviet ‑Turkish it firstly Nagorno an exclave of and should as area authorities USSR 80,000 residents. also territory.
while Its 450,000. well. a border of they entity. the
that that in 1920 surface residents connections only historical became ‑Karabakh received these ). treaties become ‑Karabakh, were 0.65% the (by Turkey, were 10.8% the Nakhchivan Provisions of on 142 The capital share between at
treaties Azerbaijan, and
the republic area area It also condition an area the concluded as the autonomous established end it is which conflict of with compared time 143 is this status ‑Turkish to 95.9%;
Azerbai to 84.5%, borders located granted guaran around Turkey should of would of is Yere high area
that also
the sep the the dis on in of on. ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
87 OSW REPORT 5/2020 88 OSW REPORT 5/2020 ‘Nakhchivan Armenia’s Appendix 1) After After Aliyev removed from Armenia, was Minister of Nagorno Iran In 1991, nised nian materialculture, including monuments. The mostwidely more media moved return topower inBaku in 1993.It isnoteworthy thatPresident Elchibey, whom remained the tures the majority to period had Seemingly, thiswas relatednotonly totheoverall dynamics of break started of der of chairman on dents dents end country – Iran.In thiswayentered along it)andpurchasingelectricityfrom Nakhchivan
his the a bridge Armenia borderland areas). that kept of is the difficult the were Nagorno in (shelling of personal
Azerbaijan representatives located), his in to to power
of the ‑Karabakh; any some four his end the he army) relatively of not term.
limit theSoviet Union. the assigned Aliyev on itself. but Nakhchivan
clan’. fighting did native of the Nagorno ‑day of to only ‑Karabakh old distance the in
incidents authority of key also which
access the to verify not local SSR,
Nakhchivan By Armenian war conducted the After border coerce stable village, offices wealthy. the to in war allow the power, Nakhchivan; alsocamefrom after (there ‑Karabakh Supreme NAR in 2016 was while people and reports Nakhchivan, to in intention ‑Armenian end the and and and Republic, the Pashinyan and the with the allegedly which in third and were cemetery president’s At the timeof of from 1982 His the later an active beginning good Azerbaijan’s and from exclave safe creation
was of May 2018 Turkey Soviet; Armenia ‑sector conflict
reputation strengthening only the of he Pashinyan’s individual personal but taken borderland towards Nakhchivan,
Baku completely to Azerbaijan was deliberate in sporadic for undertake to 1987 from 1969 also – foreign of (humanitarian death (see activists. Julfa the (2003, not as
by (and theNagorno foreigners, a Nakhchivan administration as which Azerbaijani well. relations the its allowed (where diversion as coming and he perhaps a good became exchanges policy, see destruction destroyed of native main borders compared who was greater In parallel, to 1982 These
the Aliyev’s the Appendix 1) the to were to with Azerbaijani text manager the ‑Karabakh war, thanks end initiating Armenia’s son aid increasingly also leave acts) army power border restrictions frontline not he activity First of by 2006. and of and of position the Heydar to referred some of
had fire theconflict(see this ‑publicised case started
on until a low the he fled
was the relics security Deputy (in 2018), authorities food helped crossing military the the in been report), elements concerning authorities new rest apparently the dissidents, or ‑intensity Aliyev, some in frequent. to unrecog of supplies opening to Baku he made the formal
power, leader leader Aliyev of Prime as Arme affect struc with inci inci
bor out but the the
as in in it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
(at the Nakhchivan If to places land sole ordered
Nagorno military
motorway (they at same to a distance had ‑Karabakh). take activities as time, been
well. which over it is of located For a village are
less links one It runs Azerbaijan resumed, than of on
Yerevan
two and near neutral one motorways some the this an important kilometre
with territory northern hills time
the in they running
(see south between the border potential would Map). exclave’s
of from
of the both
be the target
country Armenia’s northern likely sides’ exclave, could to positions).
and in include border capital be some
Iran the ‑
89 OSW REPORT 5/2020 90 OSW REPORT 5/2020 (up ANM within союз Ukraine, Kazakhstan, LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF LIST jan includes initiated tal transporting the until 1997. EAEU EaP DCFTA BTK BTE BTC held between Georgia CSTO CIS CEPA Договора о коллективной безопасности – ОДКБ безопасности – коллективной о Договора political a and cluded military – to Caspian – to – theBaku–Tbilisi–Erzurum gaspipeline, (or theSouth Caucasus Pipeline), – , Ukraine. – in 2006.
ЕврАзЭС – the – – (Russian Turkey, the the
Tbilisi), the – the between the and the
the the six Moldova by Commonwealth the Levon Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan Eastern Baku–Tbilisi–Kars party framework Comprehensive
Eurasian alliance Collective Turkey, Poland Sea partner Kyrgyzstan, European natural Deep ), opened abbreviation: while an economic
to the Ter operating and Partnership, and Europe, and
‑Petrosyan opened European currently states: gas Economic the in 2006. Georgia. Union Security Comprehensive of from Sweden Russia of inaugural
the
and omitting Armenia, Independent in 2017. rm 1990 from community AOD) – railway, and the
European comprising Union was and Union Enhanced oil an EU Treaty and Armenia Shah pipeline, one Tajikistan). ceremony The Pan Russia.
a rail inaugurated Azerbaijan, and (Russian: Eastern Deniz Organisation Free o 2013 to of established States. Neighbourhood
Partnership its on 24 November 2017. three six line a pipeline Trade It was ‑Armenian leaders. (Şahdəniz) for CIS , Policy running in Евразийский экономический Евразийский ODKB), Eastern
Belarus, its n 2009. in Armenia, states Areas, partially on 29 May 2014 (Russian: complete programme Agreement transferring National between
an intergovernmen gas Partnership (Armenia,
Policy, an agreement Georgia, h programme The field opened in 2005 and opening Организация which Azerbaijan, Movement, in governing concluded operating
Moldova, by oil Azerbai Belarus,
states: three from was was con ‑ ‑ ‑
(at that Turkmenistan бахская автономная область автономная бахская is isation, tive the tion the the MG NKR NKAO NAR arisinginEurope.from In additiontotheEuropean states, itsmembersinclude founding States. Soviet Soviet) gional Germany, GU(U)AM OMON (CSCE) OSCE and an international social sian: of on 10 October 2014
headed Chapter VIII – theOSCEMinskGroup, a specialisedunitestablishedin 1992by theOSCE Interior Conference United activities. Moldova. and – – Отряд мобильный особого мобильный Отряд unrest, – republics. organisation – the
the t also It special hence time
The Nagorno was
Special states: Italy, by – Nakhchivan Nagorno States, of the the renamed a co‑chairmanship – hostage
In the the the The term includes and of forces Sweden, on Organisation the organisation, CSCE) Belarus,
Purpose the second Russian Security Canada, and Mongolia. ‑Karabakh of Organisation years United
‑Karabakh unit crises
from four Autonomous Kyrgyzstan to the Turkey, OMON
letter Mobile Kazakhstan Federation. resolve 1999–2005 operating Kazakhstan, and post the following Nations and ). for The OSCE considered Republic U in CSCE is назначения ‑Soviet Co‑operation as consisting Autonomous Democracy acts
Units, the also for on 23 December 2014. well the Charter, Republic. within Uzbekistan of to
Nagorno The unit is Security and participating used
(para as abbreviation. states: terror, sometimes the was Uzbekistan, a regional Armenia Russia. of
OSCE. for and , the whose ‑state). created
ОМОН Oblast in France, ‑Karabakh Georgia, but similar and structure Economic Europe used was
It was it goal called and organisation Co‑operation ), states: (Russian: on 1 January 1995 also a member Kyrgyzstan, in Russia Russian a units is Azerbaijan. Ukraine, emergencies became
conflict. joined undertakes ‘Black to of Development, Belarus, prevent
in the and Нагорно other
of Berets’ by an organisa in Ministry (previously Azerbaijan, the
The group in Tajikistan, the
the Armenia conflicts Finland, Europe, such preven former United organ ‑Кара when sense
(Rus a re as of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
91 OSW REPORT 5/2020 92 OSW REPORT 5/2020 Azerbaijan. USSR RF PFA for of its SSR – example – Soviet – the – leaders. the the Russian Popular Union It ruled the Socialist Republic, Armenian Federation. of Front Azerbaijan
Soviet of
SSR, Azerbaijan, Socialist abbreviation the from 1992 Azerbaijan Republics. a political to 1993. used for the SSR. party Abulfaz established republics of Elchibey in 1988
the was USSR, one in
Map. * Former exclaves (notallare marked) © TURKEY GEORGIA Nagorno of the The area Azerbaijan. and Armenia Gyumri / Yerevan ARMENIA Nakhichevan Tbilisi * *
province
Tavush NAKHICHEVAN (AZ) NAKHICHEVAN * Sevan Lake Julfa * Kalbajar Stepanakert / Khankendi Agarak Ganja Defunct section of railroad linking Baku and Yerevan Main railroads in the South Caucasus Roads linkingYerevan with Stepanakert and theIranian border Border of former Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast Autonomous of the Azerbaijan SSR Former Shaumyan district and part of the former Khanlar district Armenian-controlled territories Lachin Shusha IRAN RUSSIA AZERBAIJAN conflict ‑Karabakh Astara Caspian Sea Baku 93 OSW REPORT 5/2020