Mines and unexploded ordinance are a major long-term problem in the Karabakh conflict zone

This is a commentary by the political editor of commonspace.eu

A nineteen-year-old Armenian soldier died on Friday (1 September) as a result of a landmine explosion. Although not much information is available about the circumstances of the death, it is understood that he did not die in a combat situation. An official statement by the de facto authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh said that "Hayk Khachatryan, 19, was fatally wounded in a Karabakh Defence Army military unit located in the northern direction of the line of contact". He was later awarded posthumously the medal 'For Service in Battle' "for bravery shown during the defence of the NKR state border", according to the same sources.

The issue of mines and unexploded ordinance is one of the most serious aspects of the Karabakh conflict, a continuous threat to the population in the conflict-affected region, both Armenian and Azerbaijani. The area is heavily mined, and the problem will take a long time to resolve even in an ideal situation if peace returns to the region. In the present tense situation on the line of contact, resolving the problem is all but impossible as long as both sides do not recognise its seriousness and agree to take mutually-agreed steps to deal with it.

Part of the problem is simply its scale: mines were seen as a cheap way of defence in the 1990s - their lethal consequences often not fully understood. Both sides used them extensively. Since then, other unexploded ordinance from the original conflict, and from the subsequent flare-ups of the last twenty-five years, have exacerbated the problem. Very often people die as a result of mines planted by their own side, whose location has been forgotten.

The main obstacle however is not the scale of the problem but the current political and military impasse. Given the tense stand-off between the two sides, and the frequent outbursts of violence, mine and unexploded ordinance clearance often blurs into military activity. Because the borders are contested, as is the status of Karabakh itself, any activity, even if of a humanitarian nature, is prone to controversy. Some argue that a solution to the problem is impossible until there is a resolution of the conflict itself. Both sides however are increasingly aware of the seriousness of the situation. In Karabakh itself the de-facto authorities have struggled with the problem for many years, and more than three hundred people have died since 1994 in incidents involving mines and unexploded ordinance. The Halo Trust has been engaged in demining efforts in Nagorno-Karabakh where it has a staff of more than two hundred people, but its presence on only one side of the conflict divide is a matter of controversy. Mines and unexploded ordinance remain a serious problem for the population of the territory.

On the Azerbaijani side of the line of contact the situation is not much different. There are regular incidents. Sometimes unexploded mines wash down rivers to areas where they were not expected. And in the village of Jojug Marjanli which Azerbaijan retook possession of after the April 2016 fighting, the Azerbaijani land clearance organisation ANAMA struggled for months to make the area safe for displaced villagers to return. In July it said that it had defused 176 mines and other unexploded ordinance. This was in one village alone.  ANAMA's  Director,  Gazanfar Ahmadov was quoted by the news agency APA on 18 July as saying that since it was established in 1998 ANAMA has neutralised 760,000 mines and unexploded ordinance.

It should therefore be amply clear to both sides that the time has come for the issue to be dealt with separately from the wider discussion on the conflict and its resolution. With the help of the international community the sides should work out modalities on how they can deal with the humanitarian aspects of the problem without compromising either their political positions, or weaken their military postures.

This commentary was prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

 

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Russia adds pressure on Armenia ahead of key elections; recalls Ambassador in Yerevan for consultations

Russia adds pressure on Armenia ahead of key elections; recalls Ambassador in Yerevan for consultations

Ahead of key parliamentary elections,scheduled to be held in Armenia on Sunday, 7 June, Russia continues to attempt to put pressure on the Armenian Government led by prime minister Nikol Pashinyan. On 30 May, Russia recalled its Ambassador to Yerevan for consultations. A terse statement, published on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said, "The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Armenia , S.P. Kopyrkin, has been summoned to Moscow for consultations in connection with the steps taken by the Armenian leadership to move closer to the European Union, which are detrimental to cooperation within the EAEU." This followed a statement issued the day before, by the leaders of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) that challenges the Armenian trajectory towards approximating to the European Union. Vladimir Putin is undertood to have personally pushed the other four EAEU leaders to issue the statement, which said: "Taking into account the significant risks to the economic security of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) arising in connection with the preparation of the Republic of Armenia for accession to the European Union, as well as the need to prevent the associated damage to the member states of the Union: decided that the members of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council from the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation will report at the next meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in December 2026 on the possible consequences of the suspension of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with respect to the Republic of Armenia. We share the position on the need to hold a national referendum in the Republic of Armenia as soon as possible on joining the European Union or continuing to be part of the Eurasian Economic Union."
Editor's choice
News
The leaders of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union issued a tough statement warning fellow-member state Armenia of the consequences of its desire to join the European Union.

The leaders of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union issued a tough statement warning fellow-member state Armenia of the consequences of its desire to join the European Union.

The leaders of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEAS) issued a tough statement warning fellow-member state Armenia of the consequences of its desire to join the European Union. The stark, sharply worded,  warning, comes days before crucial parliamentary elections in Armenia, scheduled for 7 June. The full statement said, “We, the Presidents of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation, Taking into account the actions of the Republic of Armenia aimed at joining the European Union, including the approval in 2025 by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia and the signing by the President of the Republic of Armenia of the Law of the Republic of Armenia "On the Start of the Process of Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the European Union", as well as the confirmation by the European Union of the European aspirations of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, expressed in the joint declaration following the first Armenia-European Union summit, adopted on 5 May 2026, Taking into account the significant risks to the economic security of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) arising in connection with the preparation of the Republic of Armenia for accession to the European Union, as well as the need to prevent the associated damage to the member states of the Union: decided that the members of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council from the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation will report at the next meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in December 2026 on the possible consequences of the suspension of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with respect to the Republic of Armenia. We share the position on the need to hold a national referendum in the Republic of Armenia as soon as possible on joining the European Union or continuing to be part of the Eurasian Economic Union. Astana, May 29, 2026” A meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council was held in Astana, Kazakhstan, on May 29, 2026. The meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in a restricted format was attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko , Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev , Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov , Armenian Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan, and Chairman of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission Bakytzhan Sagintayev. From the Russian side, the meeting was also attended by Deputy Prime Minister and member of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission Alexey Overchuk and Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov . The heads of delegations from EAEU observer states, including President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev , Vice President of Cuba Salvador Valdés Mesa, Minister of Industry, Mines, and Trade of Iran Mohammad Atabak, and CIS Secretary General Sergei Lebedev, joined the expanded meeting . Following the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, a number of documents were signed .

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)