THE BITTER REALITY OF WAR.

A unique animated series of cartoons, created by a group of exceptional up-and-coming individuals committed to contributing to the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has just been launched. Roxana Cristescu, Head, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia at CMI (Martti Ahtisaari Centre) reflects on the significance of this innovative and bold initiative in this review for commonspace.eu

The first episode of a unique animated series created by a group of exceptional up-and-coming individuals committed to contribute to the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has just been released for the general public. The cartoons are a direct projection of their desire to bring about positive change to the war-induced traumas that have plagued their societies for generations. The series, suggestively titled Peacefall,is, according to one viewer in Baku, "one of the most out of the ordinary artistic endeavours produced in the last years" about this conflict.

The initiative is an outcome of a five year long dialogue process facilitated by Crisis Management Initiative in the region in the framework of the European Partnership for the Peaceful resolution of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (EPNK). The scope of the process has been to set a basis for sustained engagement in peacebuilding in each of the societies affected by the conflict. The long standing dialogue did its outmost to shape innovative and consistent cross-conflict confidence building practice that, in a shared manner, would acknowledge and respect all the actors involved in the process.

In fact, as one can notice throughout Peacefall episodes, the authors' intention is not to provide ad-hoc documentation of facts and historical analysis or to single out different interpretations of reality, negative or positive as they might be. What instead is offered is a first row seat to a systematic effort to expose - through fiction - the unnoticeable devastating effects of decades-long unresolved grievances and mutual violence. The cartoon's artistic pursuit is to challenge our consensual illusion of a "frozen" context in the face of so much underlying complexity and insidious change.

The characters of the cartoon and their stories have been created to "speak" to a broad audience in the region. They have been designed to tackle our myopic attention and expand our understanding beyond what happens inside our own bubble and immediate reality. Their stories will perhaps patch the emotional blind spots that keep all of us detached from the steady decline of entire societies directly reliant for their wellbeing on a sustainable settlement. Even if only for five minutes at a time, the characters attempt to challenge with each episode the accepted wisdom that we can waver in this conflict, and no extraordinary disaster follows, and that more wavering is just fine.  The cartoons challenge the idea  "Why act now when the future is far off?"

The choice of the animated communication is not a random one either. It is a conscious response to a public sphere saturated with official narratives and expert exchanges. It is an attempt to "animate" a space rich in analysis, conflict terminology and geopolitics language, but often self-absorbed, oblivious to its limited outreach, and incapable of capturing and processing one of the core issues of the problem - human behaviour and agency in conflict.

Setting aside hard data and bleak social indicators of societies' transformation under years of protracted conflict, Peacefall episodes mirror the emotional journeys and stories of millions of people who are suffering from the conflict. The scenarios put under the spotlight those phenomena that - particularly in the expert community or official circles - are registered as just a reflection of something bigger happening elsewhere  -  "significant but not our business".

The first cartoon in the series is an attempt to cut narrow the realpolitik curtain and encourage searching for solutions beyond mainstream explanations that blame the lack of progress in the peace process either on ethnic diversity, geopolitical alliances or statesmen with overarching power crafting little wonders in their laboratories up in a tower. The series displays a societal context that people themselves shape, make use of, exploit, and suffer from, in the absence of an official settlement of the conflict. It lays bare life happening "outside" while the "magic potion" refuses to work in vitro.

The producer of the first episode, titled "The Legacy" is Hayk Toroyan. He told commonspace.eu,

 "The idea behind this particular episode is to show the legacy or the tradition passed from one generation to the other. Traditions, knowledge, wisdom and vision can be a great asset and help the youth in their life. But sometimes the legacy becomes a curse. With knowledge come stereotypes, with wisdom comes close-mindedness, with vision comes blurriness. In this particular episode we tried to show the passing of this 'tradition of war' to a younger generation, which results in senseless wars for something that started a long time ago. Children grow up with hatred and rage, they are not given the chance to see things differently, to look at the conflict from a different angle. The only angle they inherited was the war angle, the only tradition they inherited was the tradition of war. Since birth they are cursed with their legacy, legacy of war and hatred."

Photo above: Roxana Cristescu (left) speaking to some of the young people behind the annimated cartoon series Peacefall


You may watch the first episode of Peacefall here. The second episode will be available in April.

Source: Roxana Cristescu is Head, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia at CMI (Martti Ahtisaari Centre). She contributed this review for commonspace.eu. Haik Toroyan is one of the producers of the first episode of Peacefall


 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)