Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
IREn5019 No War, No Peace: Unresolved Conflicts in the Caucasus
Mgr. Zinaida Bechná, Ph.D.
9.10.2024
Structure
Introduction
Stages of conflict
Phase A: From Latent conflict to Escalation
Phase B: Trigger events – emergence of sporadic clashes.
Phase C: Frozen conflict
Peace negotiations
Nagorno-Karabakh
Karabakh - "black garden„,
"Nagorno-" is a Russian word
meaning "mountain„.
Status: de jure part of the Republic
of Azerbaijan, unilaterally declared
itself an independent republic in
1991
Capital: Stepanakert.
Area: 4,400 sq km
Main religion: Christianity
Languages spoken: Armenian,
Russian
Currency in use: Dram.
Ethnic map of N-K in 1989
Conflict phases
1. Phase A: Latent Conflict (1988–1992)
• Nature of the Conflict: This period is characterized by low-intensity violence. During this time, tensions escalated between the
Armenian and Azerbaijani populations of Nagorno-Karabakh, with growing political mobilization but relatively limited violent
outbreaks.
• The seeds of the conflict were sown with the rise of ethnic nationalism, political unrest, and protests, particularly after the 1988
decision of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia. This latent phase involved
sporadic clashes but did not yet escalate into full-scale war.
2. Phase B: Full-Scale War (1992–1994)
• Nature of the Conflict: This phase marks the transition from sporadic violence to an intense and large-scale war, with
significant loss of life and territorial battles.
• The collapse of the Soviet Union exacerbated ethnic tensions, leading to full-scale war between Armenian and Azerbaijani
forces over Nagorno-Karabakh. Between 1992 and 1994, the conflict intensified, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties
and displacement of people from both sides. By 1994, the fighting ended in a ceasefire, which effectively left NagornoKarabakh
under Armenian control, although it remained internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
3. Phase C: Frozen Conflict (1994–2014)
• Nature of the Conflict: After the ceasefire in 1994, the conflict entered a "frozen" phase, with the potential for re-escalation at
any time. There were occasional flare-ups, but the situation remained largely in a stalemate.
• Although there were negotiations and international efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully, no formal peace agreement was
reached. The region continued to experience occasional skirmishes, and the potential for renewed conflict remained high,
contributing to a protracted state of unresolved tension.
The Origins of Phase A – Latent Conflict (1988–1992)
Soviet Legacy and Ethnic Tensions: The roots of the conflict between Armenians and
Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh trace back to the decision made during the Soviet era,
particularly in 1921 when Stalin placed Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian region,
under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. This decision fostered long-term dissatisfaction among
Armenians, especially as Azerbaijan's policies towards the region were perceived as attempts
at "Azerbaijanization."
Gradual Azerbaijanization: In the 1970s and 1980s, tensions escalated due to demographic
policies by the Azerbaijani government, which sought to increase the Azerbaijani population in
Nagorno-Karabakh. By 1989, Armenians still made up about 77% of the population, but
Azerbaijani numbers had nearly doubled over two decades​.
Political Mobilization: The emergence of nationalist movements like the Karabakh Committee in
Armenia and Krunk in Nagorno-Karabakh galvanized Armenians to push for secession from
Azerbaijan. Lobbying efforts in Moscow aimed to reverse what Armenians viewed as an
illegitimate decision of Soviet leadership.
Initial Stages of Ethnic Polarization (1988–1990)
Escalation of Protests: The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh began shifting from latent dissatisfaction to
active confrontation in the late 1980s. Armenians organized large-scale protests demanding the transfer
of the region to Armenia. In response, Azerbaijani protests erupted in Baku, leading to growing
polarization between the two ethnic groups​.
Outbreak of Violence: Ethnic tensions flared into violence with the first significant bloodshed in 1988 when
two Azerbaijanis were killed near Agdam, triggering pogroms in Sumgait, a city near Baku. The Sumgait
pogroms, marked by brutal attacks on Armenians, were viewed as a turning point in the conflict. The
Soviet authorities struggled to control the growing unrest​.
Armed Mobilization: Both Armenians and Azerbaijanis began forming paramilitary groups in response to
the increasing ethnic violence. Armenians, driven by memories of historical grievances, including the
1915 genocide, sought to protect their community, while Azerbaijanis reacted to the expulsion of
Azerbaijani families from Armenian-populated areas​
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
First Glance as a Secessionist Conflict:
• Initially, the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over Nagorno-Karabakh might
seem like a typical secessionist conflict. This would involve a specific ethnic group (the
Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh) seeking to break away from the Azerbaijani state to
either gain autonomy or join Armenia. Such secessionist movements often rely on
historical arguments and emotional appeals that emphasize long-standing grievances,
historical ties to the land, and cultural identity.
Azerbaijan’s National Identity Prior to 1988:
• Before 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue was not central to Azerbaijan’s national
identity. Instead, the focus of Azerbaijani national identity revolved around the concept of
unifying "north" and "south" Azerbaijan. This refers to the idea of uniting the northern part
of Azerbaijan (the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan) with the southern part (which is part of
Iran).
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
• This aspiration had roots in historical territorial divisions, as Azerbaijan was split between Russia (north) and
Iran (south) in the 19th century. This theme was central to Azerbaijani nationalistic aspirations and was still
prominent in 1989, when the Popular Front of Azerbaijan raised the issue during demonstrations near the
Soviet-Iranian border, specifically in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, which borders Iran.
Shift in Political Discourse Post-1988:
• However, after 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue began to dominate Azerbaijan's political discourse. The
Sumgait events of February 1988 were a major turning point. In these pogroms, Armenians in the city of
Sumgait were violently attacked, leading to numerous deaths. This event, driven by ethnic tensions, marked
the beginning of the violent phase of the conflict and set the stage for further bloodshed.
• The violence in Sumgait shocked both Armenian and Azerbaijani populations, and after these events, the
conflict took an unpredictable and violent turn, ultimately becoming one of the bloodiest conflicts in the
South Caucasus region. The reference to the conflict being unresolved highlights its protracted and ongoing
nature, as the conflict remains a key geopolitical issue to this day.
10. 11. 2020
First demands against environmental pollution
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
Environmental Concerns as a National Issue
• The demands to close the nuclear plant in Armenia, leading to demonstrations in 1987, reveal how
environmental concerns were intertwined with national identity and sovereignty. The movement wasn't just
about environmental protection; it was linked to the defense of the homeland and Armenian national
heritage.
• The late Soviet period saw an increase in environmental activism in several republics, including Armenia.
Concerns about the environment, such as pollution and nuclear safety, became rallying points for broader
movements of national identity and autonomy, especially as the Soviet government’s decisions often
overlooked local ecological and health impacts.
Intellectual Mobilization
• The involvement of 350 intellectuals who sent a letter to the Kremlin about the devastating effects of
pollution demonstrates how educated elites played a crucial role in politicizing environmental issues. They
linked ecological damage to the physical survival of the Armenian people, presenting environmental
degradation as an existential threat to the nation.
• Their letter pointed to alarming statistics: cancer rates had quadrupled between 1965 and 1985, and there
was a surge in abnormal births, leukemia, and mental retardation. This rhetoric of environmental disaster
underscored the urgency of their demands.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
Specific Cases of Environmental Degradation
• One specific issue raised was the pollution in the city of Hrazdan, due to emissions from a cement factory.
The factory was reported to produce 280,000 tons of dust and smoke, significantly worsening air quality
and contributing to public health problems.
• These environmental concerns were publicized in the literary journal “Karoun,” which published data that
further fueled the movement.
Nuclear Concerns and Broader Movements
• The slogan "shut down Nairit so the Armenian people will survive!" reflects how industrial pollution and the
nuclear plant became focal points of nationalist and environmental campaigns. The Nairit chemical plant
and other industrial sites symbolized Soviet exploitation and disregard for local populations.
• These environmental protests were part of a broader movement in Armenia, where national issues and
ecological activism were deeply intertwined. Environmental protection was not just about health but about
ensuring the survival and autonomy of the Armenian people, who saw the environment as part of their
national legacy.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
The environmental activism of the late 1980s in Armenia
was a significant element of the nationalistic movements
that eventually contributed to the break-up of the Soviet
Union.
The protests tied together national identity, health, and
ecological issues, creating a powerful narrative of
survival against both environmental degradation and
political subjugation under Soviet rule.
Karabakh Committee: status of N-K
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
• The Karabakh Committee and Nationalist Movements:The Karabakh Committee was composed primarily
of nationalist intellectuals and was formed in 1988, shortly after the outbreak of ethnic tensions in NagornoKarabakh.
These intellectuals played a pivotal role in channelling nationalist sentiments into organized
demonstrations and political activism, notably calling for slogans such as "one nation, one republic" and
"unification." The term "unification" referred to the goal of transferring Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijani
control to Armenian jurisdiction .
• Avoiding Political Reforms: The leaders of the Karabakh Committee did not focus their efforts on criticizing
the Soviet Communist government for issues like corruption or the lack of political reforms. Instead, they
used the platform of ethnic nationalism and anti-Turkism as a way to rally popular support. This choice was
deliberate: it was easier to mobilize people for the idea of fighting a perceived external enemy (in this case,
Azerbaijan and its Turkic ties) rather than engaging in the complex and less emotionally charged process of
pushing for systemic political reforms .
• Nationalistic Goals and Political Mobilization: Although the Karabakh Committee's overt goal was to
secure the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, this aspiration also served as a cover for larger
political ambitions. By advocating for this nationalist cause, the Committee and its leaders were able to
amass considerable political power, shaping the post-Soviet political landscape of Armenia. The broader
implications of this movement were the consolidation of political control and the marginalization of Communist
authorities .
“Miatsoum” (unification) and “struggle to the
end”
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
• Series demonstrations about environmental issues paved a way to
nationalist movement. The demonstrations and political mobilization during
this period led to the rise of two types of national elites:
• Nationalist Leaders (mostly intellectuals): These leaders, often
academics and intellectuals, spearheaded the movement for Armenian
national rights, especially concerning Nagorno-Karabakh. They advocated
for the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia and pushed a strong
nationalist agenda.
• Communist Elites: These were the remaining members of the Soviet
political structure who sought to maintain their influence and power. They
often attempted to balance between national interests and loyalty to
Moscow. The Communist elites, though increasingly unpopular, competed
with nationalist leaders for control of the political landscape​.
The Role of Nagorno-Karabakh and Ethnic
Irredentism
• At this stage, the mass mobilization in Yerevan and Stepanakert (the capital of
Nagorno-Karabakh) was not primarily anti-Soviet but was focused on hostility
toward Azerbaijan. The movement called for the transfer of Nagorno-Karabakh, a
predominantly Armenian region, from Azerbaijan to Armenia. The separatist call for
unification with Armenia symbolized a broader nationalist goal of ethnic unity and
self-determination.
• This nationalist push merged with the larger political reforms taking place in the
Soviet Union under Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika, which allowed for
increased freedom of expression. For Armenians, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh
became existential—part of a broader struggle for national survival and autonomy.
The movement also gained momentum through appeals to ethnic irredentism,
which sought to reclaim territory based on ethnic and historical claims.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
Table 1 The Population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.
Armenians Azerbaijanis
Years Actual number
Population
growth %
Actual number
Population
growth %
1921 128,060 7,594
1939 132,800 3.7 14,100 77.2
1959 110,100 -17.1 18,100 27.6
1970 121,100 10 27,200 51.1
1979 123,100 1.6 37,200 36.7
Source: Y. Mahmudov and K. Shukurov: Garabagh - Real History, Facts, Documents (Tahsil
Publishing House 2005), 71.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
• The Nagorno-Karabakh question represents a combination of:
• First, the essentialization of collective historical memories and the victimization of
the Armenian national consciousness are the result of the 1915 Genocide by the
Ottoman Empire, which resulted in the perception of a permanent threat stemming
from Turkey and its “kin brother nation,” Azerbaijan.
• Second, a demographic shift and the forced migration of the Armenian population
intensified the issue of physical survival and the identity crisis of the Armenian
nation. In the words of the president of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, “The
inclusion of NK within the borders of the Azeri SSSR put the Armenian people on the
verge of extinction“
• Historical injustice, fear of ethnic extinction, depopulation, and oppression of
the Armenian population contributed to the struggle against Azerbaijani rule
over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
Transition to Nationalism and Independence
• Rise of the Pan-Armenian National Movement (PANM): The PANM, born out of the Karabakh Committee,
gained broad support for its nationalist agenda, advocating for Armenian sovereignty and the protection of
Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians.
• Armenian Communist Party: The ruling Armenian Communist Party found itself caught in the nationalist
fervor, with many of its members outwardly supporting the PANM’s efforts for Nagorno-Karabakh's
unification.
• Political Leadership: The first Armenian president, Levon Ter-Petrossian, who emerged from the
Karabakh Committee, took office as a strong advocate of the Armenian cause in Nagorno-Karabakh. He also
played a crucial role in keeping various paramilitary groups under control, which had formed due to clashes
on the border with Azerbaijan .
• Economic Crisis: The late 1980s and early 1990s saw Armenia plunge into economic hardship, exacerbated by the
Azerbaijani blockade and the ongoing war in Nagorno-Karabakh.Diaspora Support: Armenian nationalism was further
fueled by support from the Armenian diaspora, which provided financial backing and lobbied internationally for the
Armenian cause.
The Breakdown of Soviet Authority and Escalation of
Conflict (1990–1992)
Moscow’s Inability to Control the Region: As the Soviet Union approached its collapse,
Moscow's ability to manage the Nagorno-Karabakh situation deteriorated. Both Armenians and
Azerbaijanis sought weapons and support from Soviet military units, further escalating the
violence​(Rethinking Peace and Co…)​(Rethinking Peace and Co…).
Declaration of Independence by Armenians: In 1991, the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh
unilaterally declared independence following a local referendum. The referendum, in which
nearly all Armenian voters supported sovereignty, was not recognized by Azerbaijan or the
international community​.
End of the Latent Phase: By 1992, skirmishes between the two ethnic groups had escalated into
a full-scale war. The Armenian forces had taken control of most of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the
conflict was poised to enter the next phase of violent confrontation​.
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
Azerbaijani National Identity and External Influences:
• Azerbaijani national identity has been shaped by the various powers that ruled the region for centuries, including Persian an d
later Russian imperial authorities. This influence created a complex identity structure, where Azerbaijanis often aligned
themselves with broader, more powerful communities such as the Turkic and Muslim worlds.
• Unlike Armenians, who perceived themselves as a vulnerable and isolated community, with a strong sense of uniqueness in
the Caucasus region, Azerbaijanis felt a sense of belonging to larger communities. Their identity was intertwined with a broader
Turkic heritage and the shared Islamic faith (especially with other Muslim populations in the region). The historical context
helped define this sense of community and provided a buffer against isolationist nationalism that marked Armenia.
Pre-1988 Focus: Unifying "North" and "South" Azerbaijan:
• Until the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict became central in 1988, Azerbaijani national discourse was focused on another significant
issue: the unification of north (Soviet-controlled) and south Azerbaijan, the latter of which remained part of Iran following the
Russian-Persian wars of the 19th century. This division had created a national aspiration in Azerbaijan for reuniting the two
territories, which was a cornerstone of national identity in the years leading up to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
• This aspiration gained political momentum during the late 1980s. In December 1989, during a demonstration by the Popular
Front of Azerbaijan near the Soviet-Iranian border in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, this claim for unification
was publicly raised. The demonstrations illustrated that the national consciousness of Azerbaijan at that time was directed at a
broader territorial unity, particularly with the south, rather than focusing exclusively on Nagorno-Karabakh .
Phaze A: From Latent Conflict to Escalation
Shift in National Focus Post-1988:
• The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, however, shifted the Azerbaijani national focus significantly by
1988. The desire for territorial unification remained but became overshadowed by the ethnic
and political conflict with Armenians over Nagorno-Karabakh, which became a critical issue for
Azerbaijan's national identity. This resulted in a pivot from broader pan-Turkic ambitions to
more immediate concerns regarding territorial integrity and ethnic conflict within Azerbaijan
itself.
In sum, before 1988, Azerbaijani national identity was primarily centered around unifying divided
Azerbaijani territories across the Soviet-Iranian border. However, the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict dramatically shifted the national conversation, pushing the issue of territorial integrity
and ethnic conflict to the forefront.
Political Mobilization and National Identity
(Late 1980s)
Emergence of Tensions:
• As tensions over Nagorno-Karabakh grew, Azerbaijan entered a critical phase of identity formation.
• The conflict became a key issue in shaping Azerbaijani nationalism, particularly in response to Armenia’s
push for the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.
Soviet Influence:
• Azerbaijan was still under Soviet control, and its leadership, under Ayaz Mütällibov, largely deferred to
Moscow for managing the growing crisis.
• Early on, Azerbaijan was reluctant to form its own autonomous military forces, relying on Soviet/Russian
troops instead.
Ethnic Mobilization:
• Growing ethnic tensions between Azerbaijanis and Armenians were crucial in shaping political responses.
However, these tensions also hindered unified state-building efforts in Azerbaijan.
Rise of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan (APF)
Formation of the APF:
• The Popular Front of Azerbaijan (APF) emerged as a strong nationalist and anti-Communist movement during this
period.
• It began organizing protests and paramilitary groups to address the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Conflict with Mütällibov:
• The APF clashed with President Ayaz Mütällibov, who favored working through the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) and was reluctant to escalate direct military responses.
• This political divide resulted in fragmented leadership and weakened efforts to form a national military force.
Internal Political Fragmentation:
• The rise of the APF highlighted the deepening divide in Azerbaijan's political scene, where nationalist forces and the
Communist-aligned leadership were increasingly at odds.
Ethnic and Territorial Disputes
Growing Distrust of Moscow:
• As the conflict developed, many Azerbaijanis felt that Moscow was biased in favor of Armenia.
• This perception grew as Armenian forces made gains in Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan faced setbacks.
Anti-Soviet Sentiment:
• Protests against Soviet involvement intensified, with many in Azerbaijan criticizing the Soviet government for not protecting Azerbaijani
territorial integrity.
• The growing anti-Soviet sentiment added fuel to nationalist movements, including the APF.
Abolishment of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Autonomy (1991):
• In response to growing Armenian demands for unification, Azerbaijan’s government abolished the autonomous status of Nagorno -Karabakh in
1991.
• This legal move was seen as symbolic but failed to effectively change the situation on the ground.
Challenges in Asserting Control:
• Azerbaijan struggled to assert control over the disputed territory as Armenian militias and their supporters resisted.
• Political and military weakness, coupled with internal dissent, further undermined Azerbaijan’s ability to manage the conflict.
Consequences of Political Instability
Delayed Military Development:
• Due to internal political fragmentation and reliance on Soviet/Russian forces, Azerbaijan was
slow in developing its own military capabilities.
• This delay contributed to early defeats in the conflict, further weakening the government’s
standing.
Transition to Armed Conflict:
• By the early 1990s, as the latent phase of the conflict gave way to open hostilities, Azerbaijan
found itself politically unstable and militarily underprepared.
• The early failures in addressing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict contributed to later challenges
in securing Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
Phase B: Trigger Events – Emergence of Sporadic Clashes
1. Nationalist Demonstrations and Referendum:
• In 1988, nationalist demonstrations calling for the transfer of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia
intensified. The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh sought to unite with Armenia, expressing their
desire for independence from Azerbaijan. This sentiment culminated in a referendum in NagornoKarabakh
that overwhelmingly supported unification with Armenia.
• This was a major step in the conflict's escalation, as it challenged the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
and directly opposed the policies of the Soviet authorities, who aimed to maintain the status quo.
2. Sumgait Pogrom (February 1988):
• The first major act of mass violence occurred in Sumgait (an industrial city near Baku) in February
1988, where violent pogroms were carried out against the Armenian population. Over the course of
three days (February 27-29), 32 people were killed, including 26 Armenians and 6 Azerbaijanis.
• The Sumgait events shocked the public and marked the beginning of ethnic violence between
Armenians and Azerbaijanis, creating an irreversible momentum toward greater conflict. The violence
highlighted the fragility of ethnic relations in Azerbaijan and created widespread fear and uncertainty.
Phase B: Trigger Events – Emergence of
Sporadic Clashes
3. Refugee Crisis:
• By November 1988, the ethnic violence had sparked one of the largest refugee crises in the region. According to unofficial
sources, around 180,000 Armenians had fled from Azerbaijan, while 160,000 Azerbaijanis left Armenia. This mass
displacement of populations reflected the deepening ethnic divide and the broader implications of the conflict, which extended
beyond Nagorno-Karabakh to impact the entire Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in both republics.
4. Levon Ter-Petrosian's Perspective:
• Levon Ter-Petrosian, then the leader of the Karabakh Committee and future president of Armenia, believed that the
Sumgait events fundamentally altered the dynamics of the conflict. He is quoted as saying that the violence "turned the
constitutional process to physical clashes," meaning that before Sumgait, there was hope that these issues could be resolved
through democratic and constitutional processes, especially with Gorbachev's reforms of glasnost and perestroika. However,
the violent outbreak in Sumgait shifted the conflict from political negotiation to armed confrontation.
• Ter-Petrosian also believed that the Sumgait pogrom was not orchestrated by the Kremlin, noting that it took the Soviet
authorities three days to intervene. This delay in response is often viewed as indicative of Moscow's inability or unwillingness
to immediately manage the growing unrest in the Caucasus, which further contributed to the loss of faith in the Soviet system
to maintain order or provide solutions.
Phase B: Trigger Events – Emergence of Sporadic
Clashes
External Involvement Theories:
• Vazgen Manukyan and Ashot Manucharyan, both influential leaders in the Karabakh Movement, believed
that the events in Sumgait were organized or influenced by external parties. This suggests a perception
that the violence in Sumgait, rather than being purely a spontaneous outburst of ethnic hatred, might have
been orchestrated or exacerbated by outside forces.
• There were claims, particularly within some Azerbaijani political circles, that the KGB had a hand in
escalating the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. For example, Isa Gambar, leader of the
Azerbaijani Musavat Party, alleged that the KGB and possibly Moscow supported or allowed the Sumgait
pogrom to occur to derail Armenia’s democratization and nationalist momentum. This theory suggests that
Soviet authorities wanted to stifle the growing unity and national movements in Armenia by intimidating them.
Moscow’s Role:
• According to this view, Moscow sought to create chaos and fear to disrupt the nationalist movements in
Armenia. The claim here is that the Soviet authorities, seeing the unity of the Armenian people and their
growing demands for independence, felt threatened and thus attempted to quash the demonstrations
through fear and violence.
• Isa Gambar noted: "The government is genuinely scared of our unity... They just wanted to intimidate us to
stop the demonstrations." This reflects the belief that the Soviet government could not comprehend the
grassroots, large-scale mobilization happening in Armenia and assumed it had external instigators, possibly
from the Armenian diaspora or other foreign influences.
Phase B: Trigger Events – Emergence of
Sporadic Clashes
Armenian Interpretation of Sumgait:
• For Armenians, the Sumgait pogrom became a profound symbol of historical
trauma. It was viewed not just as an isolated ethnic conflict but as a continuation of
the genocide committed by the Turks against Armenians during World War I (1915).
Armenians saw the violence as another chapter in a long history of persecution by
Turkic peoples, reinforcing fears of annihilation and creating a sense of existential
threat.
• Sumgait thus played a role in framing the narrative for Armenians, where the past
genocide provided a framework to interpret and respond to the contemporary
violence. The event solidified the perception among Armenians that they were again
under threat of ethnic cleansing, which further radicalized and united Armenian
society in defence of Nagorno-Karabakh and their broader national interests.
10. 11. 2020
Transformation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict to
Armed Phase
Sumgait Violence and its Aftermath
• The Sumgait pogrom in February 1988 marked the beginning of violent ethnic clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis,
setting the stage for an escalation from political conflict to armed confrontation.
• The violence in Sumgait was followed by further outbreaks of ethnic conflict, triggering a series of tragic events across
Azerbaijan and the region.
Escalation in Ganja
• The next major incident occurred in Ganja, Azerbaijan's second-largest city. This event further worsened ethnic tensions and
led to another wave of Armenian refugees fleeing Azerbaijan, deepening the humanitarian crisis.
Black January and Soviet Intervention
• In January 1990, the opposition in Baku organized large demonstrations demanding more radical measures in addressing
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. These protests reflected growing frustration with the government’s handling of the conflict.
• The Soviet Union responded by sending troops to Baku in what became known as "Black January", resulting in a brutal
crackdown on protesters.
• In the aftermath of Black January:
• Over 100 people were killed and more than 1,000 were wounded.
• The violence in Baku had a profound impact on Azerbaijani society, creating a sense of victimization, similar to how the
Sumgait pogrom was perceived by Armenians.
Phase B: Special Government Administration and Rising
Tensions (1989-1991)
Special Government Administration and Rising Tensions (1989-1991)
• January 12, 1989: The Soviet Union imposed direct control from Moscow over
Nagorno-Karabakh through a “special government administration,” bypassing
Azerbaijan's authority.
• Moscow allocated 400 million rubles to improve industrial, housing, and
educational capacities in the region.
• Azerbaijan Popular Front (APF): Reacted by organizing rail blockades to prevent
Moscow from providing support. This move contributed to the worsening of relations
between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
• By 1991, sporadic ethnic clashes had increased in frequency, setting the stage for
further escalation.
Declaration of Independence and Full-Scale War (1991-1994)
September 2, 1991: The Nagorno-Karabakh region declared itself an
independent republic, further deepening the conflict.
In Autumn 1991, Azerbaijani forces launched military actions to counter
Nagorno-Karabakh's independence declaration.
Operation "Ring": Azerbaijan initiated this operation to deter Armenian
demands for unification with Armenia, but it failed to halt the conflict.
By 1992, the conflict had escalated into a full-scale war, lasting until 1994.
Violent Stage
Armenian Offensive Strategies in 1991:
• Starting in 1991, the Armenian side began implementing offensive strategies as part of their
efforts to secure Nagorno-Karabakh. These strategies were characterized by guerrilla warfare
tactics, and involved a series of coordinated attacks designed to destabilize Azerbaijanicontrolled
areas and disrupt their supply lines.
• The radicalization of guerrilla activities between both Armenians and Azerbaijanis
intensified during this period, as both sides increasingly resorted to armed confrontation to
achieve their territorial aims.
• Deportation and Displacement:
• Over 10,000 Azerbaijanis were deported from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, ostensibly on
the grounds of "self-defense." This population displacement was part of a broader ethnic
cleansing campaign that sought to secure the Armenian majority in disputed areas by forcibly
removing Azerbaijani civilians.
• The deportations and displacement of Azerbaijanis significantly worsened ethnic tensions and
fueled retaliatory actions from Azerbaijani forces.
Violent Stage II
Blockades and Sabotage:
• Armenian guerrilla groups established military posts and blockaded key roads connecting Azerbaijani
villages. One key example is the highway from Khanlar to Kelbajar, where Armenian forces blocked access
to Azerbaijani villages.
• These groups also sabotaged infrastructure by blowing up water pipes supplying the Azerbaijani city of
Ganja with drinking water. Such actions created a humanitarian crisis and directly threatened the functioning
of Western Azerbaijan, home to more than one million inhabitants.
• These guerrilla activities not only created immediate military and humanitarian challenges for Azerbaijan
but also contributed to an ongoing sense of insecurity and victimization.
In summary, the slide emphasizes the escalation of the conflict in 1991, with offensive Armenian operations
intensifying through guerrilla tactics, deportations, and infrastructure sabotage. These actions played a major
role in the lead-up to the full-scale war that erupted in 1992 .
Khodjaly Massacre and Political Consequences
Massacre at Khodjaly (February 1992):
• In February 1992, one of the most tragic events
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict took place in
the town of Khodjaly.
• Armenian forces, supported by units of the 366th
CIS regiment, captured the town, resulting in the
deaths of 613 Azerbaijani civilians, many of
whom were women and children.
• The massacre was marked by extreme brutality,
including reports of torture, rape, and mutilation.
This incident became a symbol of Armenian
aggression for Azerbaijanis and a rallying point
for their mobilization against Armenians​.
Political Fallout in Azerbaijan
The Khodjaly massacre had severe political repercussions in Azerbaijan. It discredited President Ayaz
Mutallibov, whose regime was already under pressure due to military failures.
Mutallibov was forced to resign shortly after the massacre, amid accusations of incompetence and
betrayal. The massacre exposed the weaknesses of Azerbaijan’s military and government.
His resignation contributed to instability in Baku, creating a power vacuum that further complicated the
Azerbaijani response to the conflict. After a brief return to power, Mutallibov was ousted again in May 1992,
this time by forces led by the Azerbaijan Popular Front (APF).
This massacre not only intensified the conflict but also led to significant political upheaval in Azerbaijan,
undermining its leadership and fueling further instability during the early stages of the war.
Strategic Implications After Khodjaly
• The Khodjaly Massacre in February 1992 was a pivotal moment for the Armenian
forces, ensuring the control of an air corridor between Nagorno-Karabakh and
Armenia, a crucial lifeline for their military operations and supply chains​.
Capture of Shusha and Securing Land Connectivity:
• After the victory at Khodjaly, the Armenian forces turned their attention to the city
of Shusha, a historically significant town for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
Securing Shusha would further enhance Armenia's military advantage by creating a
land connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, bypassing Azerbaijaniimposed
blockades.
• After two days of intense fighting, the Armenian forces successfully captured
Shusha, suffering 57 casualties, while the Azerbaijani side lost around 200 soldiers
and civilians. This marked a critical victory for the Armenians.
Occupation of the Lachin Corridor
The next strategic goal was the Lachin Corridor, the only land
route connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. Securing
Lachin would resolve logistical problems and ensure a
steady supply of troops and resources for Armenian forces.
The Azerbaijani forces abandoned the corridor without
significant resistance, further consolidating Armenia's control
over the region. The corridor played a vital role in sustaining
the Armenian war effort throughout the conflict​.
Images of War
Over 1 million
displaced
Consequences of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Humanitarian Impact and International Response
Human Suffering during the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict:
•Casualties:
• Estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people killed as a result of the conflict.
•Refugees and Displacement:
• 250,000 to 350,000 Azerbaijani refugees fled to Armenia.
• 750,000 to 1,000,000 refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), including those displaced
from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and occupied Azerbaijani territories, sought shelter in Azerbaijan.
• Over 14% of Azerbaijan’s territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas, was occupied
by Armenian forces. These areas were ethnically cleansed of their Azerbaijani population during the
conflic
International Response and UN Resolutions:
•The United Nations passed four resolutions affirming the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
•These resolutions called for:
• The immediate withdrawal of occupying forces from the occupied regions.
• The immediate cessation of military activities.
•Armenia did not comply with these UN demands, prolonging the conflict and its humanitarian consequences.
Consequences of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict II
Sovereign State Conflict: What began as an internal conflict turned into a full-scale international conflict
between the sovereign states of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Regional Instability: The conflict drew in surrounding powers, particularly Russia, Iran, and Turkey, exacerbating
regional tensions. Russian and Iranian support for Armenia, and Turkish backing of Azerbaijan, made the
conflict a geopolitical struggle with international consequences​.
Economic Devastation: Both Armenia and Azerbaijan suffered significant economic setbacks due to the war.
Key industries and infrastructure were damaged or destroyed.
Negotiation Stalemates: The conflict remained unresolved, and despite international mediation, a peace
agreement has yet to be reached. The continued occupation of Azerbaijani territories has hampered
diplomatic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Legacy of Mistrust: The conflict has entrenched a deep sense of mistrust and hostility between Armenians and
Azerbaijanis, making long-term reconciliation and peace negotiations extremely challenging​.
Phaze C: Frozen conflict
• Skirmishes, low intensity violence, and shooting across front lines have increased, leading to a
growing arms race, accompanied by political propaganda, threats, and plans of war.
• Conflict involves: regular clashes and confrontation supported by international actors.
• The Bishkek protocol signed in May 1994:
1. to grand a wide range of autonomy to N-K, while maintaining sovereignty of Azerbaijan.
2. measures to guarantee the security of N-K,
3. Armenian withdrawal from the occupied territories in Azerbaijan,
4. special measures for the Lachin corridor to ling N-K with Armenia
5. to make arrangements between Azerbaijan and Armenia so that at least the major portion of
the refugees on both sides may return to their homes,
6. the international community to support economic reconstruction of both nations.
Phaze C: Frozen conflict
Skirmishes and Propaganda: The period leading up to the Bishkek Protocol saw rising tensions
between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Both sides engaged in political propaganda, threats of war, and
regular military clashes, often with the involvement of international players. Skirmishes across front
lines became common as hostilities simmered but did not break into full-blown war.
Bishkek Protocol's Key Provisions:
1. The protocol proposed granting wide autonomy to Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) while ensuring
Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over the region. This was a diplomatic attempt to create a
balance between Armenian demands for self-determination and Azerbaijani claims over
territorial integrity.
2. Security guarantees were proposed for N-K to prevent further military confrontations.
3. A key aspect was the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani
territories. This was in line with several UN resolutions, which demanded Armenian
withdrawal from areas beyond N-K .
Phaze C: Frozen conflict
Lachin Corridor: One of the most critical points in the Bishkek Protocol was securing
the Lachin Corridor, a vital land connection linking N-K with Armenia. Control of this
corridor ensured Armenia could provide supplies to N-K, vital for Armenian forces’
logistical support. A proposed solution was international supervision to prevent further
military exploitation of this route, maintaining the strategic balance .
Refugee Return and Economic Reconstruction: Another key goal of the protocol was
to create arrangements between Azerbaijan and Armenia to facilitate the return of
refugees displaced by the conflict. The international community was called upon to
support economic reconstruction in both countries to heal the war-torn region .
This protocol was a crucial step in moving the conflict from active warfare towards a
diplomatic resolution, though it did not bring an immediate end to hostilities.
Peace negotioations
OSCE Minsk Group Framework
• Establishment: The OSCE Minsk Group was created in 1992 by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to mediate the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
• Key Mediators: The co-chairs of the Minsk Group are Russia, France, and the United States, representing
the primary international efforts to resolve the conflict.
• Two-Step Approach:
• Step One: Armenian withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani lands, excluding Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Step Two: Negotiations on the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh, focusing on reconciling Armenia's
self-determination claims with Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
• Challenges: Despite the Minsk Group's efforts, no comprehensive peace agreement was reached, as both
sides remained entrenched in their positions regarding Nagorno-Karabakh's sovereignty​.
Peace negotioations: Bishkek Protocol (May
1994)
1. Background: Signed in May 1994, this ceasefire agreement was mediated by Russia and facilitated by the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).Key Provisions:Ceasefire between Armenian and Azerbaijani
forces.
2. Security guarantees for Nagorno-Karabakh.
3. Withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied Azerbaijani territories.
4. Special measures to secure the Lachin Corridor, linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh.
5. Refugee return: Facilitating the return of refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs).
6. Economic Reconstruction: International community support for rebuilding the war-affected regions.
Outcome: While the ceasefire held, many of the protocol’s provisions, including Armenian withdrawal from
occupied territories, were not implemented, leaving the core issues unresolved.
Peace negotioations: Madrid Principles (2007)
1. Proposal by the OSCE Minsk Group: The Madrid Principles aimed to create a roadmap for
peace based on mutual compromises.Core Elements:Return of seven occupied territories
surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.
2. Interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, providing security and self-governance.
3. Corridor connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia (Lachin Corridor).
4. A future referendum to determine Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status.
5. The right of return for all displaced persons and refugees.
6. International peacekeeping forces to monitor the situation.
Stalemate: Both sides failed to agree on these terms, with Armenia concerned about losing control
of the occupied territories and Azerbaijan rejecting a referendum on independence​.
Peace negotioations: international efforts and
limitations
• Involvement of Other Powers:
• Russia: Played a dual role as both a mediator and a geopolitical actor with vested interests in the region.
• Turkey: Supported Azerbaijan, adding complexity to negotiations.
• Iran: Attempted to act as a regional mediator, though with limited success.
• UN Resolutions: The UN passed four resolutions demanding Armenian withdrawal from occupied territories,
but these were largely ignored.Challenges to Peace:Deep mistrust between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
• Armenia's insistence on self-determination for Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Azerbaijan's firm stance on territorial integrity.
Consequences: The lack of progress in the peace talks left the region in a “frozen conflict” state until violence
flared up again in subsequent years​.
Armenian, Azerbaijani Presidents Agree On Preamble To
'Madrid Principles‚ Sochi 2010.
Sochi 2011
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
The possibility of war had been remaining
on the agenda
Azerbaijan military budget from 2004 - 463
million USD to 3, 427 billion USD in 2014 and
1, 854 billion in 2019.
Armenia 673 million USD in 2019.
Azerbaijan and Armenian military expenditures
No end to conflict in sight
Both sides unwilling to make concessions
“Primordial” claims over territory by both
sides.
The unsolved problem of what to do with
refugees.
Continued fighting despite cease-fire
Russia claiming to uphold cease-fire
while arming Armenia; U.S. making oil
deals with Azerbaijan.
Building of oil pipelines likely to upset
Armenia.
Suggested documantary
Places That Don't Exist: Nagorno Karabakh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTzMtfk3v80
10. 11. 2020