The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has entered a new phase

This is an editorial comment prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu.

Since the beginning of the year the number of incidents between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces on the line of contact separating them in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, and on the international border between them, have increased substantially - not only in number, but also in their  gravity. The tension on the front line continues to be accompanied by sharp exchanges of verbal tirades from Baku and Yerevan (with Stepanakert chipping in on the side of the latter from time to time). On the other hand both sides have excelled themselves in spreading disinformation -distorting real information on the causes of the incidents, the number of casualties that they suffered, or that they have inflicted on their opponents. Despite the fog of lies we can conclude that casualties in January 2015 were high, on average of one a day.

On Friday ( 23 January) the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk said developments on the contact line are a cause for concern  citing reports of use of heavier weapons in ceasefire violations, and an increasing number of incursions across the border and the line of contact resulting in increased casualties.

In the past there have been occasions when violence on the front line momentarily increased for a day or two, to settle down soon after to a routine of exchange of bullets during the night, often blamed on bored soldiers in trenches venting their frustration. Clearly what we have seen since the beginning of the year is something different: more serious, more sustained, and more dangerous.

Both sides blame each other. On Monday (26 January), President Serzh Sargsyan gave the Armenian perspective when he spoke to the Board of the Armenian Ministry of Defence in Yerevan. The President said that the start of the year has been tense and admitted that Armenia had suffered casualties. He accused Azerbaijan of wanting to create constant tension around the Armenian side. Sargsyan added: "This is a simply a policy of blackmail aimed not so much at us, but at the international community. Official Baku is attempting to show everyone what it can do if all of its whims are not met."

On the other hand Azerbaijan blames Armenia of intransigence in the peace negotiations. President Ilham Aliev, speaking in Davos on 22 January warned that failure to resolve the conflict could create a precedent: "If the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not resolved based on international law, then you must be ready to see similar things in other parts of the world", he said.

Some may argue that none of this is very different from what we have seen in the past twenty years, and especially in the last five years. There is however one significant difference. The peace process, facilitated by the OSCE Minsk Process is in deep crisis. We have not been told this officially, either by the sides, or by the mediators, but we can easily conclude this from the fact that the two Presidents now seem to have pulled out of the discussions altogether, and their foreign ministers now do not seem to bear being in the same city together, let alone in the same room.

What comes next is a matter of speculation. Most analysts agree that neither side wants  total war if possible, yet there is also some reason to understand that neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan, are able to sustain the amount of military spending, high level of military alertness, and overall commitment to sustain their positions, for too much longer. Something is going to have to give - and this can be either through negotiations or through war. With the negotiations stalled the options are now very narrow for both sides.

All this is happening whilst the international community is distracted by other very serious crisis right across the world: Ukraine, Yemen, Syria - not to mention the terrorist attacks in Paris, have absorbed the attention of world leaders this long January month.  In comparison Karabakh may seem like a small local difficulty that will blow over. It is not, and it is impossible to say that the situation we have today is the same as that of one five or fifteen years ago.  We have entered a new phase in the Karabakh conflict, and it is a dangerous moment. The standoff between Russia and the rest of the international community on Ukraine means that mobilising a unified response to the escalation is more difficult than ever. The responsibility of the sides to assume themselves responsibility for resolving this terrible conflict is now therefore heavier than ever before. For the sake of their own nations they need to do so.


This is an editorial comment prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

photo: Armenian Army officers listening to an address by President Serzh Sargsyan in Yerevan on Monday, 26 January 2015. (Picture courtesy of the Press Service of the President of Armenia).

 

 

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)