The decades-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is one of the most enduring of the many conflicts in the post-Soviet space. The two countries fought two full-scale wars – from 1988 to 1993 and for 44 days in 2020 – punctuated by intermittent yet destructive fighting. The main motivating factor was the status of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, a region which had a majority Armenian population despite having been part of Azerbaijan since the early Soviet Union. We last wrote about this conflict after Azerbaijan’s full-scale attack on Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 forced the Armenian population to leave, ending decades of de-facto autonomy. Surprisingly, the two states have since begun an unprecedented peace process, raising hopes that a formal peace treaty and normalization may finally be within reach.
One unique feature of these negotiations is that they are largely bilateral without involving outside actors. For the first time, the two states are generally speaking directly to each other. There is broad international support, with talks hosted in other countries such as Germany, but unlike past negotiations, there is no outside mediating power.
The two sides issued a landmark joint statement in December 2023, and their actions indicate that both may have a genuine interest in peace. To demonstrate progress, Armenia handed over four villages in Azerbaijan on the border which it had held for decades, and returned to its Soviet-era borders, allowing the two sides to begin moving to formally demarcate the border for the first time.
Dr. Margarita Tadevosyan of George Mason University, an expert on the region, spoke with Peace News Network about the negotiations. According to Tadevosyan, “the ongoing peace process marks a significant departure from previous efforts, primarily due to the direct talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is very encouraging to see that after many years, we witness a stronger exercise of agency in the region.”
The two sides remain apart on transport links to Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhchivan, which lies between Armenia and Turkey, and on the border issues, but publicly remain committed to negotiations, and optimistic about the prospects for finalizing an agreement by the end of 2024.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has faced domestic opposition for his peace initiative, and many in Armenia fear another war. The combination of political turmoil within Armenia, and inflammatory rhetoric from Azerbaijan, threatens the peace process. Dr. Arthur Atanesyan, a professor at the Yerevan State University of Armenia and a former OSCE expert, mentions that “the majority of the Armenian population does not support its government in the current format of peace negotiations under Azerbaijani pressure, and does not believe in stable peace.” He points to statements by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev that “the rest of the historical Armenian territory also belongs to Azerbaijan.”, as rhetoric that “does not contribute to peace but provokes another war.”
Tadevosyan told Peace News Network that “in the Armenia-Azerbaijan context, we observe a notable power asymmetry. Pashinyan’s government, [and] Pashinyan [are] personally taking significant, yet risky steps towards achieving their peace agenda. However, these advances are not mirrored to the same extent in Azerbaijan … the larger segments of civil society, and most importantly, the general public, remain deeply entrenched in old, polarizing narratives that do not seem to be improving. There is a general lack of a deeper understanding on both sides of what peace means beyond mere border delineation and the absence of war. Importantly, at least in the Armenian context … the peace process is often framed around the fear of another war.
Furthermore, according to Tadevosyan, “Armenia’s leadership heavily relies on the narrative that if certain steps aren’t taken, another war could ensue. While these fears are legitimate, in my opinion, this narrative is damaging to a sustainable long-term peace process. Both Armenian and Azerbaijani societies need to be guided through a process where they aspire to build peace not out of fear of war, but because they recognize and understand the growth and development prospects that sustained peace offers.”
Atanesyan took a more pessimistic view, telling PNN that from his perspective, ““the resources behind these peace negotiations possessed by Azerbaijan and Armenia are different, however. Azerbaijan officially continues to strengthen its position by taking other territories if the Armenian government does not follow the current format of bilateral negotiations and does not cease public talks and even memories about Karabakh, historically inhabited by Armenians. By threatening with force, Azerbaijan continues to gain new territories and an image of strength, while the Armenian government represents a weak position, following the rules and being unable to reclaim territory by force.”
It is important to understand how this conflict fits into the current regional and international context. Both sides have used ties to regional and global actors to bolster their own position, and history plays a large role. Russia and Turkey have played crucial roles in the region for centuries, and continue to do so today. Turkey has historically backed Azerbaijan. Turkey has become an increasingly assertive regional power, and its support, especially in the form of weapons and drones, is widely credited with tipping the military balance in Azerbaijan’s favor since 2020.
Under Pashinyan, Armenia has turned towards the West. Russia had long been Armenia’s strongest ally, supplying weapons and sending peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia has grown closer to Azerbaijan since the start of its invasion of Ukraine, although the relationship is not without its own issues. At the same time, Russia’s regional influence has faded since its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. During the 2023 attack on Nagorno-Karabakh, Russian peacekeepers stood by and did nothing, either unwilling or unable to intervene. Whether Russia’s war on Ukraine has depleted its regional power, or whether it is punishing Armenia for turning towards the West, it left its former ally isolated and at a severe disadvantage.
All of these factors lead to a precarious peace process – a tense situation which has not been helped by occasional minor clashes and threats of further war.
The future of the negotiations and prospects for long-term peace are uncertain, despite some progress. A successful outcome would have many positive impacts for the region, and would end one of the world’s longest frozen conflicts.
Tadevosyan told PNN that “while defining peace simply as the absence of war is an important initial step, a broader, more consistent, and sincere societal engagement is necessary. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan need to foster an internal conversation about what a mutually built peace should look like. This conversation needs to be bipartisan and detached from short-term political gains.”
A final peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan would send a strong global message of peace, as two countries with different governing systems, ideologies, and religions, would end decades of brutal and bitter conflict through negotiation, not through violence. They can demonstrate that a long history of conflict does not make peace impossible, if leaders are willing to engage with each other and recognize the benefits of peace.
