On April 2, 2016, the press service of the Armenian Ministry of Defense announced that the Azerbaijani armed forces had gone on the offensive throughout the entire area of ​​​​contact with the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army. The Azerbaijani side reported that fighting began in response to shelling of its territory.

The press service of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) stated that Azerbaijani troops launched an offensive in many sectors of the front, using large-caliber artillery, tanks and helicopters. Within a few days official representatives Azerbaijan reported the occupation of several strategically important heights and settlements. On several sections of the front, attacks were repulsed by the NKR armed forces.

After several days of fierce fighting along the entire front line, military representatives from both sides met to discuss the terms of the ceasefire. It was reached on April 5, although after this date the truce was repeatedly violated by both sides. However, in general, the situation at the front began to calm down. The Azerbaijani armed forces began to strengthen the positions captured from the enemy.

The Karabakh conflict is one of the oldest in the vastness former USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh became a hot spot even before the collapse of the country and has been frozen for more than twenty years. Why did it flare up with renewed vigor today, what are the strengths of the warring parties and what should be expected in the near future? Could this conflict escalate into a full-scale war?

To understand what is happening in this region today, you should do small excursion into history. This is the only way to understand the essence of this war.

Nagorno-Karabakh: background to the conflict

The Karabakh conflict has very long historical and ethnocultural roots; the situation in this region has worsened significantly in last years existence of the Soviet regime.

In ancient times, Karabakh was part of the Armenian kingdom; after its collapse, these lands became part of the Persian Empire. In 1813, Nagorno-Karabakh was annexed to Russia.

Bloody interethnic conflicts took place here more than once, the most serious of which occurred during the weakening of the metropolis: in 1905 and 1917. After the revolution, three states appeared in Transcaucasia: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, which included Karabakh. However, this fact did not suit the Armenians at all, who at that time made up the majority of the population: the first war began in Karabakh. The Armenians won a tactical victory, but suffered a strategic defeat: the Bolsheviks included Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan.

During the Soviet period, peace was maintained in the region; the issue of transferring Karabakh to Armenia was periodically raised, but did not find support from the country's leadership. Any manifestations of discontent were harshly suppressed. In 1987, the first clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis began on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which led to casualties. Deputies of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO) are asking to annex them to Armenia.

In 1991, the creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) was proclaimed and a large-scale war with Azerbaijan began. The fighting took place until 1994; at the front, the sides used aviation, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery. On May 12, 1994, a ceasefire agreement came into force, and the Karabakh conflict entered the frozen stage.

The result of the war was the actual independence of the NKR, as well as the occupation of several regions of Azerbaijan adjacent to the border with Armenia. In fact, Azerbaijan suffered a crushing defeat in this war, did not achieve its goals and lost part of its ancestral territories. Similar situation did not suit Baku at all, which had been building its own domestic policy on the desire for revenge and the return of lost lands.

Current balance of power

In the last war, Armenia and NKR won, Azerbaijan lost territory and was forced to admit defeat. For many years, the Karabakh conflict remained in a frozen state, which was accompanied by periodic skirmishes on the front line.

However, during this period a lot changed economic situation warring countries, today Azerbaijan has a much more serious military potential. Over the years of high oil prices, Baku managed to modernize the army and equip it with the latest weapons. Russia has always been the main supplier of weapons to Azerbaijan (this caused serious irritation in Yerevan), also modern weapons purchased in Turkey, Israel, Ukraine and even South Africa. Armenia's resources did not allow it to qualitatively strengthen the army with new weapons. In Armenia, and in Russia, many thought that this time the conflict would end the same way as in 1994 - that is, with flight and defeat of the enemy.

If in 2003 Azerbaijan spent $135 million on the armed forces, then in 2018 costs should exceed $1.7 billion. Baku's military spending peaked in 2013, when $3.7 billion was allocated for military needs. For comparison: the entire state budget of Armenia in 2018 amounted to $2.6 billion.

Today, the total strength of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces is 67 thousand people (57 thousand people – ground troops), another 300 thousand are in reserve. It should be noted that in recent years, the Azerbaijani army has been reformed along Western lines, moving to NATO standards.

The ground forces of Azerbaijan are assembled into five corps, which include 23 brigades. Today, the Azerbaijani army has more than 400 tanks (T-55, T-72 and T-90), with Russia supplying 100 of the latest T-90s from 2010 to 2014. The number of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicles is 961 units. Most of them are products of the Soviet military-industrial complex (BMP-1, BMP-2, BTR-69, BTR-70 and MT-LB), but there are also newest cars Russian and foreign production (BMP-3, BTR-80A, armored vehicles made in Turkey, Israel and South Africa). Some of the Azerbaijani T-72s have been modernized by the Israelis.

Azerbaijan has almost 700 units artillery pieces, among which there are both towed and self-propelled artillery, this number also includes rocket artillery. Most of them were obtained during the division of Soviet military property, but there are also newer models: 18 Msta-S self-propelled guns, 18 2S31 Vena self-propelled guns, 18 Smerch MLRS and 18 TOS-1A Solntsepek. Separately, it should be noted the Israeli Lynx MLRS (caliber 300, 166 and 122 mm), which are superior in their characteristics (primarily in accuracy) to their Russian counterparts. In addition, Israel supplied the Azerbaijani Armed Forces with a 155-mm SOLTAM Atmos self-propelled gun. Most of the towed artillery is represented by Soviet D-30 howitzers.

Anti-tank artillery mainly represented by the Soviet anti-tank missile system MT-12 "Rapier", also in service are Soviet-made ATGMs ("Malyutka", "Konkurs", "Fagot", "Metis") and foreign-made (Israel - Spike, Ukraine - "Skif") . In 2014, Russia supplied several Khrysantema self-propelled ATGMs.

Russia has supplied Azerbaijan with serious sapper equipment that can be used to overcome enemy fortified zones.

Air defense systems were also received from Russia: S-300PMU-2 “Favorite” (two divisions) and several Tor-M2E batteries. There are old Shilkas and about 150 Soviet Krug, Osa and Strela-10 complexes. There is also a division of the Buk-MB and Buk-M1-2 air defense systems, transferred by Russia, and a division of the Israeli-made Barak 8 air defense system.

There are Tochka-U operational-tactical systems, which were purchased from Ukraine.

Armenia has a much smaller military potential, which is due to its more modest share in the Soviet “legacy”. And Yerevan’s finances are much worse - there are no oil fields on its territory.

After the end of the war in 1994, large funds were allocated from the Armenian state budget for the creation of fortifications along the entire front line. The total number of Armenian ground forces today is 48 thousand people, another 210 thousand are in reserve. Together with the NKR, the country can field about 70 thousand soldiers, which is comparable to the Azerbaijani army, but the technical equipment of the Armenian armed forces is clearly inferior to the enemy.

The total number of Armenian tanks is just over a hundred units (T-54, T-55 and T-72), armored vehicles - 345, most of them were made in USSR factories. Armenia has practically no money to modernize its army. Russia gives it its old weapons and provides loans for the purchase of weapons (Russian, of course).

The Armenian air defense is armed with five S-300PS divisions, there is information that the Armenians support the equipment in good condition. There are also older examples of Soviet technology: S-200, S-125 and S-75, as well as Shilki. Their exact number is unknown.

The Armenian Air Force consists of 15 Su-25 attack aircraft, Mi-24 (11 pieces) and Mi-8 helicopters, as well as multi-purpose Mi-2.

It should be added that in Armenia (Gyumri) there is a Russian military base where the MiG-29 and the S-300V air defense system division are stationed. In the event of an attack on Armenia, according to CSTO agreement Russia must help its ally.

Caucasian Knot

Today, Azerbaijan's position looks much more preferable. The country managed to create modern and very strong armed forces, which was proven in April 2018. It is not entirely clear what will happen next: it is beneficial for Armenia to maintain the current situation; in fact, it controls about 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan. However, this is not very beneficial for Baku.

Attention should also be paid to the domestic political aspects of the April events. After the fall in oil prices, Azerbaijan is experiencing an economic crisis, and the best way to pacify the dissatisfied at such a time is to unleash a “small victorious war.” The economy in Armenia has traditionally been bad. So for the Armenian leadership, war is also a very suitable way to refocus the attention of the people.

In terms of numbers, the armed forces of both sides are approximately comparable, but in terms of their organization, the armies of Armenia and the NKR are decades behind modern armed forces. Events at the front clearly showed this. The opinion that the high Armenian fighting spirit and the difficulties of waging war in mountainous terrain would equalize everything turned out to be erroneous.

Israeli Lynx MLRS (caliber 300 mm and range 150 km) are superior in accuracy and range to everything that was made in the USSR and is now produced in Russia. In combination with Israeli drones, the Azerbaijani army has the opportunity to deliver powerful and deep strikes against enemy targets.

The Armenians, having launched their counter-offensive, were unable to dislodge the enemy from all their positions.

With a high degree of probability we can say that the war will not end. Azerbaijan demands the liberation of the areas surrounding Karabakh, but the Armenian leadership cannot agree to this. It would be political suicide for him. Azerbaijan feels like a winner and wants to continue fighting. Baku has shown that it has a formidable and combat-ready army that knows how to win.

The Armenians are angry and confused, they demand to recapture the lost territories from the enemy at any cost. In addition to the myth about the superiority of our own army, another myth was shattered: about Russia as a reliable ally. Over the past years, Azerbaijan has received the latest Russian weapons, and only old Soviet weapons have been supplied to Armenia. In addition, it turned out that Russia is not eager to fulfill its obligations under the CSTO.

For Moscow, the state of the frozen conflict in the NKR was an ideal situation that allowed it to exert its influence on both sides of the conflict. Of course, Yerevan was more dependent on Moscow. Armenia has practically found itself surrounded by unfriendly countries, and if opposition supporters come to power in Georgia this year, it may find itself in complete isolation.

There is another factor – Iran. IN last war he sided with the Armenians. But this time the situation may change. There is a large Azerbaijani diaspora living in Iran, whose opinion the country’s leadership cannot ignore.

Negotiations between the presidents of the countries with the mediation of the United States were recently held in Vienna. The ideal solution for Moscow would be to introduce its own peacekeepers into the conflict zone; this would further strengthen Russian influence in the region. Yerevan will agree to this, but what does Baku need to offer to support such a step?

The worst-case scenario for the Kremlin would be the outbreak of a full-scale war in the region. With Donbass and Syria on the back burner, Russia may simply not be able to sustain another armed conflict on its periphery.

Video about the Karabakh conflict

If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them

The conflict between Azerbaijan on the one hand, and Armenia and NKR on the other, escalated on April 2, 2016: the parties accused each other of shelling border areas, after which positional battles began. According to the UN, at least 33 people were killed during the fighting.

Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenians prefer to use old name Artsakh) is a small territory in Transcaucasia. Mountains cut by deep gorges, turning into valleys in the east, small fast rivers, forests below and steppes higher up the mountain slopes, cool climate without sudden temperature changes. Since ancient times, this territory was inhabited by Armenians, was part of various Armenian states and principalities, and there are numerous monuments of Armenian history and culture on its territory.

At the same time, since the 18th century, a significant Turkic population has penetrated here (the term “Azerbaijanis” was not yet accepted); the territory is part of the Karabakh Khanate, which was ruled by a Turkic dynasty, and the majority of the population were Muslim Turks.

In the first half of the 19th century, as a result of wars with Turkey, Persia and individual khanates, the entire Transcaucasus, including Nagorno-Karabakh, went to Russia. Somewhat later it was divided into provinces without taking into account ethnicity. Thus, Nagorno-Karabakh at the beginning of the 20th century was part of the Elizavetpol province, most of which was inhabited by Azerbaijanis.

By 1918 Russian empire as a result of well-known revolutionary events, it disintegrated. Transcaucasia became the arena of bloody interethnic struggle, which was contained for the time being Russian authorities(It is worth noting that during the previous weakening of imperial power during the revolution of 1905-1907, Karabakh had already become an arena of clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.). The newly formed state of Azerbaijan laid claim to the entire territory of the former Elizavetpol province.

The Armenians, who formed the majority in Nagorno-Karabakh, wanted either to be independent or to join the Armenian Republic. The situation was accompanied by military clashes. Even when both states, Armenia and Azerbaijan, became Soviet republics, the territorial dispute between them continued. It was decided in favor of Azerbaijan, but with reservations: most of the territories with an Armenian population were allocated to the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO) consisting of Azerbaijan SSR.

The reasons why the Union leadership made this decision are unclear. Assumptions include the influence of Turkey (in favor of Azerbaijan), the greater influence of the Azerbaijani “lobby” in the union leadership compared to the Armenian one, Moscow’s desire to maintain a hotbed of tension in order to act as the supreme arbiter, etc.

IN Soviet time the conflict quietly smoldered, breaking through either with petitions from the Armenian public for the transfer of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, or with measures taken by the Azerbaijani leadership to creepingly oust the Armenian population from the areas adjacent to the autonomous region. The abscess broke out as soon as the union power weakened during “perestroika.”

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh became significant for the Soviet Union. It clearly showed the growing helplessness of the central leadership. He demonstrated for the first time that the Union, which seemed indestructible in accordance with the words of its anthem, could be destroyed. In some ways, it was the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that became the catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus, its significance extends far beyond the region. It is difficult to say what path the history of the USSR, and therefore the whole world, would have taken if Moscow had found the strength to quickly resolve this dispute.

The conflict began in 1987 with mass rallies of the Armenian population under the slogans of reunification with Armenia. The Azerbaijani leadership, with the support of the Union, unequivocally rejects these demands. Attempts to resolve the situation boil down to holding meetings and issuing documents.

In the same year, the first Azerbaijani refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh appeared. In 1988, the first blood was shed - two Azerbaijanis died in a clash with Armenians and the police in the village of Askeran. Information about this incident leads to an Armenian pogrom in Azerbaijani Sumgait. This is the first case of mass ethnic violence in the Soviet Union in several decades and the first sound of the death bell for Soviet unity. Then the violence increases, the flow of refugees from both sides increases. The central government demonstrates helplessness; making real decisions is left to the republican authorities. The actions of the latter (deportations of the Armenian population and the economic blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan, the declaration of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of the Armenian SSR by Armenia) are heating up the situation.

Since 1990, the conflict has escalated into a war with the use of artillery. Illegal armed groups are active. The leadership of the USSR is trying to use force (mainly against the Armenian side), but it’s too late - he himself Soviet Union ceases to exist. Independent Azerbaijan declares Nagorno-Karabakh its part. NKAO proclaims independence within the borders of the autonomous region and the Shaumyan region of the Azerbaijan SSR.

The war lasted until 1994, accompanied by war crimes and great sacrifices civilians on both sides. Many cities were reduced to ruins. On the one hand, the armies of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia took part in it, on the other – the armies of Azerbaijan with the support of Muslim volunteers from different countries peace (Afghan Mujahideen and Chechen militants are usually mentioned). The war ended after decisive victories of the Armenian side, which established control over most of Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions of Azerbaijan. After this, the parties agreed to mediation by the CIS (primarily Russia). Since then, Nagorno-Karabakh has maintained a fragile peace, occasionally broken by cross-border firefights, but the problem is far from resolved.

Azerbaijan firmly insists on its territorial integrity, agreeing to discuss only the autonomy of the republic. The Armenian side equally firmly insists on the independence of Karabakh. The main obstacle to constructive negotiations is the mutual bitterness of the parties. By pitting nations against each other (or at least not preventing the incitement of hatred), the authorities have fallen into a trap - now they themselves are unable to take a step towards the other side without being accused of treason.

The depth of the gap between peoples is clearly visible in the coverage of the conflict by both sides. There is not even a hint of objectivity. The parties unanimously keep silent about pages of history that are unfavorable for themselves and immensely inflate the crimes of the enemy.

The Armenian side focuses on the historical belonging of the region to Armenia, on the illegality of the inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh into the Azerbaijan SSR, and on the right of peoples to self-determination. The crimes of Azerbaijanis against the civilian population are depicted - such as pogroms in Sumgait, Baku, etc. Wherein real events acquire clearly exaggerated features - such as the story of mass cannibalism in Sumgait. Azerbaijan's connection with international Islamic terrorism is rising. From the conflict, accusations shift to the structure of the Azerbaijani state in general.

The Azerbaijani side, in turn, emphasizes the long-standing ties between Karabakh and Azerbaijan (remembering the Turkic Karabakh Khanate) and the principle of the inviolability of borders. The crimes of Armenian militants are also remembered, while their own people are completely forgotten. The connection between Armenia and international Armenian terrorism is indicated. Unflattering conclusions are drawn about the world's Armenians as a whole.

In such a situation, it is extremely difficult for international mediators to act, especially considering the fact that the mediators themselves represent different world forces and act in different interests.

The parties declare their determination to defend principled positions - the integrity of Azerbaijan and the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, respectively. Perhaps this conflict will be resolved only when generations change and the intensity of hatred between peoples subsides.

Who benefits from the new Armenian-Azerbaijani war? Large-scale hostilities began in Nagorno-Karabakh. On the night of April 2, 2016, Azerbaijani troops launched an offensive along the entire line of contact with the armed forces of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

There are battles using artillery, and so are aviation. Both sides accuse each other of escalating the conflict, but the nature of the fighting on the Azerbaijani side indicates a pre-planned operation. The long-standing conflict between the two peoples of the region: Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijanis related to the Turks has flared up with renewed vigor.

Why the conflict is disadvantageous for Armenia

The resumption of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is most disadvantageous for Armenia, which was previously quite happy with the status quo. The conflict of the late 80s and early 90s ended in her favor. Maintaining the conflict in a frozen state could last as long as desired. In fact, the territory was under Armenian control. There was no need for Armenia to provoke Azerbaijan. After the defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh in the 90s, Azerbaijan significantly strengthened and modernized its army. Money from the sale of oil and gas helped; Armenia does not have such a resource.

In terms of army size, population, including reservists, and economic potential, Azerbaijan surpasses Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic combined. This means that war means the risk of defeat for Armenia. In addition, Armenia will be forced to accept thousands of refugees (Azerbaijan has no one to accept, since there are no Azerbaijanis left in Nagorno-Karabakh), which will place a heavy burden on the country’s social system.

Dangers for Azerbaijan

For Azerbaijan, the current geopolitical situation is far from the most favorable for starting a war, which is due to the allied relations between Russia and Armenia. The only thing Azerbaijan can hope for is non-interference in the Russian conflict if the fighting does not extend beyond the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh. In the event of a conflict with Russia, Azerbaijan is doomed to defeat like Georgia in 2008. But the risk of the unfrozen conflict turning into a full-scale regional war is very high.

Why is war unprofitable for Russia?

Of the major geopolitical players, the resumption of the conflict is most disadvantageous for Russia. Russia is the guarantor of peace in the South Caucasus and an ally of Armenia in the CSTO. In the event of a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia is obliged to help Armenia if it turns to it with such a request. However, in recent years, Russia, while maintaining a good relationship with Armenia, and became close to Azerbaijan to such an extent that it began supplying weapons there. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev pointedly did not come to the summit last year Eastern Partnership EU, and a bill was introduced into the Azerbaijani parliament to terminate many previous agreements with the United States. War means the collapse of all previous architecture international relations, which Russia has painstakingly built in the region.

Russian military bases are located on the territory of Armenia. If the war escalates, Russia may be drawn into it, which is also not in the interests of this country, which is busy with the war in Syria and the conflict in Ukraine. At a minimum, active policy in Syria will have to be abandoned.

Dangers for Turkey

Türkiye, as a regional player, could gain some benefits from the conflict in the north. First of all, this would force Russia to pay less attention to the Syrian problem, which would strengthen Turkey’s own position in this matter. In addition, Azerbaijan, by the start of hostilities, undermined its own relations with Russia, which means that it will have no choice, regardless of the outcome of the war, but to get closer to Turkey. It is significant that earlier Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu stated that his country would support “the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan,” i.e. aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh.

At the same time, if the war goes beyond the borders of Karabakh, it also carries risks for Turkey. Türkiye will be forced to start providing assistance to Azerbaijan. Considering civil war in the Kurdish regions of Turkey itself, this will divert Ankara’s attention from Syria.

Why is war beneficial to the United States?

The only country that is interested in both defrosting the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and turning it into a full-scale war, where both Russia and Turkey could be drawn in, is the United States. After it became clear that Russia managed to withdraw some troops from Syria, but at the same time take Palmyra with the help of others, the United States intensified attempts to remove Russia from the game. A bloody conflict in close proximity to the Russian borders is best suited for this role. The United States is also interested in weakening Turkey’s role in the Syrian issue. Then they will be able to make full use of the Kurdish factor.

If Russia supports Armenia, then the United States will be able to finally gain control over Azerbaijan. If Russia does not support Armenia, this will be used as an argument to reorient the country towards the United States. Unlike Turkey, the United States is engaging with both sides of the conflict and will not be the loser in any case.

During the invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was in Washington. The day before, he met with US Vice President Joe Biden. It was the last dignitary, with whom Aliyev spoke before his army launched its offensive. During the meeting, the President of Azerbaijan emphasized that the position of Barack Obama as President of the co-chairing country - the United States on the inadmissibility of the existing status quo is of great importance

Aliyev later stated that he welcomed peaceful resolution conflict, but on the basis of resolving the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Aliyev's behavior indicates that he received support from external forces, primarily the USA. Earlier on March 15, he visited Ankara, where this issue was also most likely discussed.

It is significant that the United States was in no hurry to condemn the start of hostilities by Azerbaijan or to somehow influence the president of this country who is in Washington. As for Turkey, the president of this country, Recep Erdogan, expressed his condolences to Aliyev in connection with the death of Azerbaijani military personnel. Turkish Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz stated Azerbaijan's “fair position” and expressed strong support for Baku. Objectively, a war can also hit the interests of this power, but the current Turkish leadership has repeatedly proven that it can follow the lead of the United States, contrary to its own real interests.

Annotation. This article is devoted to the conflict between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over the possession of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. This confrontation between two sovereign states is one of the most complex conflicts, which has deep roots, both ethnic and political, and is based on two basic principles - the right to self-determination of peoples and the territorial integrity of the state. The author examines the main causes of the conflict. An analysis was carried out of the factors that influenced the emergence and further development of this conflict. Special attention focused on conflict resolution after active hostilities. The article also highlights the actions of other countries that are participating in the process of resolving this conflict. A possible future development of events that would help resolve the conflict was considered.

During the Soviet period, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was part of the Azerbaijan SSR. Since the majority of the population there were Armenians, it had a special status defined by republican law “About the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region”. However, during the years of perestroika, a conflict broke out between the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations of Nagorno-Karabakh, which lasted from 1987 to 1994, the last three years being marked by full-scale military action. Two independent countries were drawn into this war - Armenia and Azerbaijan, which used all their resources in the ensuing confrontation. On December 10, 1991, a referendum was held in Nagorno-Karabakh, in which 99.89% of voters supported secession from Azerbaijan. Local Azerbaijanis did not participate in this referendum. This indicates that the Azerbaijanis completely ignored the referendum, while the Armenians took this issue more seriously, seeing it as key moment to join Armenia. Different positions on this issue make it difficult to assess the real mood of the entire people in the region at that time, because of this it is almost impossible to say for sure whether the people of Nagorno-Karabakh really wanted to join, and what proportion were against it. In our opinion, the Azerbaijani side tried to hold on to Nagorno-Karabakh until the last, leaving the latter with no other solution other than war, since peace negotiations would have reached a dead end.

"Duringarmed warsstrengthThe Nagorno-Karabakh Republic completely captured the territory directlyNKAO plusseveral Azerbaijani regions,locatedfor heroutside. Armenians completelyorpartiallycapturedterritory of Kelbajar, Lachin, Kubatly, Jebrail, Zangelan, Agdam and Fizuli regions of Azerbaijan. The total area of ​​the occupied territories, not counting Nagorno-Karabakh itself, is 7634 square meters. km". As we all know, the territory of modern Azerbaijan is 86,600 square meters. km. However, estimates of the territories controlled by Azerbaijan from various resources vary. The famous British journalist Thomas de Waal estimates the Armenian-controlled territory of Azerbaijan to be 11,797 square meters. km. , while Vladimir Stupishin, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Russian Federation in Armenia - less than 14%. Azerbaijan's official position is estimated at 13,149 square meters. km. . That is, this means that 15.1% of the entire territory of Azerbaijan is under the control of Armenia.

Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has become one of the most difficult to resolve, since both sides do not agree to make any concessions. At the stage of the collapse of the USSR, this conflict was accompanied by an acute political and then full-scale military confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which on May 16-17, 1994 ended with the signing, through the mediation of Russia, of a ceasefire agreement and non-resumption of hostilities. But they gave rise to an armed conflict controversial issues have not been resolved to this day. We believe that the issue of seven regions of Azerbaijan, under the control of Armenia, or in another way "safety zone", around the NKR is the most acute and difficult to resolve.

The main limiting factor remained the OSCE Minsk Group on the Karabakh settlement. Officially, nine intermediary countries were included in it, but the main active members are its co-chairs - Russia, the USA and France. For a long time, the co-chairing countries managed to maintain a common approach to the negotiation process based on recognition of the status quo, i.e., the state of the “frozen conflict”, since neither the Azerbaijani nor the Armenian side were ready to compromise. However, in recent years, especially after the recognition Western countries independence of the autonomous province of Kosovo and in light of the results of the Russian-Georgian war of 2008, the situation began to change.

Back in November 2007, at a meeting of OSCE heads of government in Madrid, the foreign ministers of Russia, the United States and France presented a list of basic principles for resolving the conflict, proposing to adopt the preparation of a draft peace treaty on their basis. They proposed a specific settlement plan, according to which:

• the Armenian side must liberate at the first stage five of the seven occupied regions of Azerbaijan, where Azerbaijanis will begin to return;
• should be introduced into the conflict zone international forces peacekeeping - peacekeepers;
• temporary displaced persons from Azerbaijan return to their places of residence in the territory of the NKR;
• after this, within 10-15 years a referendum will be held, which should determine and consolidate the status of the republic.

Subsequent experience showed that neither side was ready to accept compromise, and therefore unpopular decisions for their countries, and without this, resolving the conflict seemed almost impossible. Over the past two decades, a situation of total mutual rejection and mistrust has developed in the societies of the two countries. Discussion possible options The decisions were devoted to multiple meetings between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan, which, however, did not lead to compromises.

The growing tension around the Nagorno-Karabakh problem in the spring and summer of 2010 threatened to escalate into an open armed conflict against the backdrop of a sharp increase in Azerbaijan’s militant activity and Armenia’s actual refusal of the terms for resolving the conflict proposed by international mediators. All this forced the European Union, as well as Russia, the United States and France, as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, to once again publicly formulate the most acceptable conditions for resolving the conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh.

At the beginning of June 2010, the European Parliament approved Resolution 2216, containing the requirement “in withdrawal of Armenian forces from all occupied regions of Azerbaijan”. At the same time, at a meeting between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a decision was made to jointly search for ways to resolve “frozen” conflicts. And despite the high level of cooperation with Armenia, Russia’s position on resolving the conflict around the NKR was consistently formulated in accordance with the principles agreed upon within the Minsk Group. “The main thing is that the process continues on the basis of respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and respect for other fundamental norms international law, without the use of force,” stated the Statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry dated May 24, 2010.

Meetings began to take place in this direction. Of particular note is the joint statement of the presidents of the United States, Russia and France on June 26, 2010 on Nagorno-Karabakh in the Canadian city of Muskoka. This was followed by a ministerial meeting in Almaty at the OSCE forum. Visits are also made to high level, these are: visit to Baku and Yerevan of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (July 2010); official visit to Azerbaijan of Turkish President Abdullah Gul (August 2010); finally, a visit to Yerevan and Baku by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (August-September 2010) and a meeting of the presidents of the United States and Azerbaijan within the framework of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The joint statement of the presidents on June 26, 2010 once again summarized the principles agreed upon by the parties for a lasting settlement of the conflict:

• Return of the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, providing guarantees of security and self-government.
• The presence of a corridor connecting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Determination of the future final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of the will of its population.
• The right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their places of former residence.
• International security guarantees, including peacekeeping operations.

This is certainly the basis for building a stable peace in this region. Each point is very important, since it either depends on and cannot be fully implemented without the others, or one follows from the other. It is also worth noting that the points quite comprehensively include the positions of both sides. However, so far, unfortunately, the negotiation process has led nowhere.

The adoption of this essentially basic document was followed by a visit to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The central point of her visit was Baku, where she once again emphasized that the United States stands for a peaceful resolution of the Karabakh problem, taking into account the principles of territorial integrity, non-use of force and the right to self-determination, as reflected in the Helsinki Final Act.

The visit to Armenia was focused on the issues of normalizing Turkish-Armenian relations and opening the Armenian-Turkish border - an issue of strategic importance for the American side. It was not possible to move these issues forward, and the lack of a direct connection with the need to resolve the conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh caused an extremely negative reaction in the political circles of Azerbaijan. Leading Azerbaijani political scientists assessed the visit of the US Secretary of State as a “failure”. However, despite the fact that the visit was not a success, this should not be written off. Any step in such a matter will count if it is aimed at resolving the conflict.

More definite, from the point of view of the interests of Azerbaijan, were the results of the official visit to Baku of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, during which on August 16, 2010 the parties signed “ Strategic Partnership Agreement and mutual assistance" At the same time, the Turkish president unequivocally hinted at the possibility of a forceful solution to the protracted conflict: “In today’s world, the occupation of foreign lands cannot drag on for such a long period. If the issues are not resolved, uncontrollable problems may arise.” Abdullah Gul called for “silent but decisive diplomacy,” and his call was supported by the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh, whose leaders declared their readiness to solve the problem militarily. At the same time, reports appeared in the Azerbaijani press that temporarily displaced persons from the eastern part of the former autonomous region were preparing to return to Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

The risk of Turkish intervention in the regional redistribution of the Caucasus in the absence of real guarantees of stability from the United States could lead to a new Caucasian war, which would pose difficult operational tasks for Moscow. Russia's strategic ally, Armenia, also found itself at the crossroads of external threats, where in August 2010 an open anti-Russian campaign unfolded at the information level. At the same time, according to the assessment of the situation at the beginning of September, the situation could easily get out of control: incidents on the line of contact of armed units became almost daily, and the OSCE monitoring mission consisted of only 6 people. Therefore, it was important to build a system of checks and balances to prevent the conflict from spreading uncontrollably.

Under these conditions, state visits to Armenia and Azerbaijan by Russian President D.A. took place. Medvedev. Russia's position was based on the main thesis: Azerbaijan and Armenia are Russia's strategic partners, war between them is unacceptable, cooperation with them is important for Russia as a regional and global player in the Caucasus.

Negotiations in Armenia ended with the signing of a new agreement on military cooperation and extension of the stay of the Russian military base in Gyumri from 25 to 49 years. A kind of compensation was that Russia assumed obligations to protect Armenia’s borders not only with Iran and Turkey, but also with Azerbaijan.

Armenian political scientist Sergei Minasyan positively assessed this fact, although he noted that the presence of a foreign military base to a certain extent limits the sovereignty of the state. Of course, the state limits itself somewhat, but we can evaluate this action positively. As noted earlier, Russia is not interested in major conflicts that could destabilize the region. It can also be noted that if one side wins in armed clashes, it will cause a rise in nationalism in the other. Neighboring countries may also suffer from this, as they may not be involved in a local conflict of their own free will. However, Russian border control provides an indisputable fact against such a course of events. Any side that goes on the offensive will first meet with Russia, with which it will suffer heavy losses and will no longer be able to continue active operations.

During the visit to Baku, a number of documents important for both sides were signed, including - about the state border and about quadrupling gas supplies from Azerbaijan to Russia, while D.A. Medvedev also stated that Russia would not interfere with Azerbaijan's participation in Nabucco. This indicates that Russia does not take sides, and is ready to support both countries, without inciting conflict between them.

Meanwhile, according to the chairman of the public association “Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno-Karabakh”, in the summer they began to prepare for a return to the areas liberated from occupation, as well as to the Shushi region, where the Azerbaijani population predominated before the war. Peace, although fragile, began to advance in this region. However, according to this account, Thomas de Waal at the presentation of his book "Black Garden" when it was republished in 2013 by New York University: "I was in Karabakh about 10 times,” Thomas de Waal said at the presentation. “And the locals are trying to show, maybe even a little too persistently, how everything is fine with them.” Nagorno-Karabakh is a surprisingly calm place. If you lose your bike there, someone will bring it to you in half an hour. They have created all these functional institutions and ministries, although no one recognizes them. They want to show that they have built a state, and let’s, they say, forget about the conflict. But this is a myth. On the surface everything is very calm, but if you look closely, you will see conflict and trauma.” This once again shows that this region still remains problematic, despite all efforts to stabilize it. The past conflict left an indelible mark on the life of the local population. Since the end of September, an international assessment mission led by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group began working, which will have to assess the situation in the occupied territories, in connection with which Azerbaijan suspended consideration of the draft resolution it had prepared at the 65th session of the UN General Assembly.

At the beginning of December 2010, the OSCE summit took place in Astana, which was marked by a new aggravation of the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh - for the first time, contrary to a previously reached agreement, a meeting between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sargsyan did not take place. It is difficult for the leaders of the two countries to agree on anything if Baku speaks and wants to hear only about territorial integrity, and Yerevan speaks about the independence of Karabakh, which is still legally part of Azerbaijan.

At the beginning of August 2014, shots were fired again in Nagorno-Karabakh, killing several dozen people on both sides. An old territorial dispute has escalated with renewed vigor. Skeptics predicted a large-scale war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, then the weapons practically fell silent, providing a chance for diplomats and politicians to negotiate the terms of a truce and resolve outstanding issues. The Ministry of Defense of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic states that Azerbaijan is not yet ready for a peaceful resolution of the issue.

Military clashes stopped after a trilateral meeting of the presidents of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, which took place on August 10 in Sochi at the initiative of Vladimir Putin. And although as a result, no agreements were signed and no significant decisions were made, negotiations with the participation of the leader of the country, with which both Armenia and Azerbaijan are connected in many areas, pushed the parties towards dialogue. Which is already a lot: militant sentiments were intensifying in Yerevan and Baku. "However The Kremlin clearly played ahead of the curve, since the West and NATO were also ready to actively intervene in the situation and traditionally use it for their own purposes, including as a lever of pressure on Russia.” We believe that this position is overly critical. Of course, there was some risk, since any wrong decision on the part of the administration could have enormous consequences. We can observe that Russia's actions in foreign policy allowed to resolve the problem, but it could also cause a negative effect through its actions.

The President of the Scientific Society of Caucasus Studies, Alexander Krylov, noted that the long-term efforts of Moscow and the OSCE Minsk Group to resolve the Karabakh conflict are aimed, first of all, at creating conditions for negotiations. But the problem itself needs to be solved by Yerevan and Baku: "Negotiators mustthemselvesdetermine ways to solve the problem and their approaches to it, which will soften the situation, and the mediators, towards whom reproaches are heard, cannot dictate their will to the conflicting parties. In that main reason misunderstandings in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Often the mediator dictated his will, and this did not benefit the opposing parties themselves. Therefore, the task of Moscow and other mediators is to ensure the negotiation process, as well as to prevent war and reduce tension in the conflict zone.”

Various countries and organizations have already brought the parties to the negotiating table more than once. Thanks to this, both Armenia and Azerbaijan in their official position abandoned armed conflict as the only possible solution to the problem. Undoubtedly, this is already a great success in dialogue. Although, of course, it is still very far from a final settlement. There are many purely historical and political reasons, mutual resentment is strong, and the victims of previous clashes have not yet been forgotten. However, Russia today represents a unique negotiating platform for Baku and Yerevan, which, through direct mediation Russian President allows you to establish personal contact between the leaders of the conflicting parties.

Russia builds relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan differently. If in one case we're talking about about a military-political ally, then in another - about an important trade and economic partner. However, it is the multi-channel approach, respect for one’s neighbors and specific proposals for resolving the conflict that allow us to hope that with the mediation of Moscow, the conflict will sooner or later be resolved. It's up to Baku and Yerevan.

The best way to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is to continue direct dialogue between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia and discuss specific proposals and approaches for a final resolution of the conflict.

We believe that the final solution this issue may not take place in the near future. This is directly related to the mood of the people in both states. The first step, and usually the most difficult and lengthy, is that the governments of both countries must change the mood of the people from complete hostility and hostility to the opposite. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia are not ready to make concessions, since, as they see it, this will be an indicator of weakness. This will lead to popular indignation, which may lead to protests and riots. That is why, first of all, the propaganda that any step forward on one side must stop is a victory for the other. If this interethnic hostility is eradicated, then a large component of the conflict that once arose will be resolved. It is quite possible that Azerbaijanis who left their places of residence during the war will be able to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. This would restore the integrity of the region, and would give a chance to understand the very essence of the problem. Since the region of the country is dominated by another nation, it requires a carefully thought-out policy. It is quite possible that both sides will be able to reach a mutual agreement in the end. As already mentioned, everything is in the hands of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and only they are destined to resolve this issue.

1. Armenian-Azerbaijaniconflictin Nagorno-Karabakh. Help //Electronic resource "RIA News", 05.05.2009. http :// ria . ru / politics /20090505/169997689. html
2. Nagorno-Karabakh: reasons, reason,risksand benefits of 5 countries from a possible new war // Electronic resource "Exchange Leader", 13.08.2014. http :// www . profi - forex . org / news - mira / entry html
3. ThomasdeVaal Black Garden. Armeniaand Azerbaijan between peace and war. //Publishing house "Russian politicalencyclopedia". - 2014 - With. 413
4. IN.Kazimirov.Opium forof his people.Howpropagandists are harming the settlementin Karabakh. // Agency "Regnum". 2014. http://vn.kazimirov.ru/p005.htm
5. Official site "State Commission on cases of prisoners of war, hostages and missing citizens" . http :// web . archive . org / web /20140121041606/ http :// www . human . gov . az /? sehife = etrafli & dil = ru & sid = MTA 0 OTU 5 MTA 4 MTI zMDU 5 OQ ==
6. Allawhetherexitout of a dead end? // Magazine "Bulletin of Europe", №30, Email address
7. 7.Alla Yazkova. Nagorno-Karabakh conflictwaitingsolutions.// "Independent newspaper" . Email address http://www.ng.ru/politics/2010-06-18/3_kartblansh.html
8. There same.
9. There same.
10. Expert: Karabakh conflictHowzone of consensus between the Westand Russia // electronic resource"Information Agency REGNUM » , 19.06.2014. http :// www . regnum . ru / news / polit /1816051. html
11. Medvedev: Russiawill not interfere with the projectNabucco. // Russian news information agency « NEWSru . com » . http :// www . newsru . com / arch / finance /03 sep 2010/ medvedev . html
12. AllaYazkova. Nagorno-Karabakh: possiblewhetherexitout of a dead end? // Magazine "Bulletin of Europe", №30, 2011. Email address http://magazines.russ.ru/vestnik/2011/30/ia7.html
13. Zhanna Ulyanova. Putin had to interveneinto the armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan // electronic resource "RBC". 04.08.2014. http :// top . rbc . ru / politics /04/08/2014/940904. shtml
14. Nagorno-Karabakh:withoutintermediariesnot enough. // Electronic resource "RIA News", 22.08.2014. http :// ria . ru / radio /20140822/1020984818. html

The war in Nagorno-Karabakh is inferior in scale to the Chechen one: about 50,000 people died in it, but the duration of this conflict exceeds all Caucasian wars last decades. So, today it is worth remembering why Nagorno-Karabakh became known to the whole world, the essence and causes of the conflict and what last news known from this region.

Background to the war in Nagorno-Karabakh

The background to the Karabakh conflict is very long, but its reason can be briefly expressed as follows: the Azerbaijanis, who are Muslims, have long been arguing over territory with the Armenians, who are Christians. It is difficult for the modern average person to understand the essence of the conflict, since killing each other because of nationality and religion in the 20-21st century, as well as because of territory, is complete idiocy. Well, if you don’t like the state within whose borders you find yourself, pack your bags and go to Tula or Krasnodar to sell tomatoes - you’re always welcome there. Why war, why blood?

Scoop is to blame

Once upon a time under the USSR, Nagorno-Karabakh was included in the Azerbaijan SSR. By mistake or not by mistake, it doesn’t matter, but the Azerbaijanis had the paper on the land. Probably, it would be possible to come to an agreement peacefully, dance a collective lezginka and treat each other to watermelon. But it was not there. The Armenians did not want to live in Azerbaijan, accept its language and legislation. But they weren’t really going to go to Tula to sell tomatoes or to their own Armenia. Their argument was ironclad and quite traditional: “the Didas lived here!”

The Azerbaijanis also did not want to give up their territory; they also had didids living there, and they also had paper for the land. Therefore, they did exactly the same as Poroshenko in Ukraine, Yeltsin in Chechnya and Snegur in Transnistria. That is, they brought in troops to restore constitutional order and protect the integrity of the borders. Channel One would call this a Bandera punitive operation or an invasion of blue fascists. By the way, the well-known hotbeds of separatism and war - the Russian Cossacks - actively fought on the side of the Armenians.

In general, the Azerbaijanis began to shoot at the Armenians, and the Armenians began to shoot at the Azerbaijanis. In those years, God sent a sign to Armenia - the Spitak earthquake, in which 25,000 people died. Well, it seems like the Armenians would have taken it and left for the vacant place, but they still really didn’t want to give the land to the Azerbaijanis. And so they shot at each other for almost 20 years, signed all sorts of agreements, stopped shooting, and then started again. The latest news from Nagorno-Karabakh is still periodically full of headlines about shootings, killed and wounded, that is, although there is no big war, it is smoldering. In 2014, with the participation of the OSCE Minsk Group, together with the United States and France, a process to resolve this war began. But this did not bear much fruit either - the point continues to remain hot.

Probably everyone guesses that there is a Russian trace in this conflict. Russia really could have resolved the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh a long time ago, but it is not profitable for it. Formally, it recognizes the borders of Azerbaijan, but helps Armenia - just as duplicitously as in Transnistria!

Both states are very dependent on Russia and the Russian government does not want to lose this dependence. Russian military facilities are located in both countries - in Armenia there is a base in Gyumri, and in Azerbaijan there is a Gabala radar station. Russian Gazprom does business with both countries, purchasing gas for supplies to the EU. And if one of the countries gets out of Russian influence, it will be able to become independent and rich, what good will it do if it joins NATO or holds a gay pride parade. Therefore, Russia is very interested in the weak CIS countries, so it supports death, war and conflicts there.

But as soon as the power changes, Russia will unite with Azerbaijan and Armenia within the EU, tolerance will come in all countries, Muslims, Christians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Russians will embrace each other and visit each other.

In the meantime, the percentage of hatred towards each other among Azerbaijanis and Armenians is simply off the charts. Get yourself an account on VK under an Armenian or Azeri, chat, and just be amazed at how serious the split is there.

I would like to believe that maybe in at least 2-3 generations this hatred will subside.