Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
War is not a solution, neither for Armenia nor for Azerbaijan

War is not a solution, neither for Armenia nor for Azerbaijan

4 April 2016

OPINION:  As conflict returns to the Caucasus, regional analyst Dennis Sammut warns of the danger of an escalation of what is already an explosive situation.

Over the last few days war has returned to the Caucasus region as Armenian and Azerbaijani soldiers battled each other in the northern sector of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory. Dozens have been killed, including many civilians, in what has already proved to be the most serious fighting between the two sides since the 1994 ceasefire that ushered in an uneasy calm of no peace, but mostly no war.

Military operations are still on-going, and it is as yet not possible to define exactly what triggered the latest outburst of violence, nor whether it will escalate. Regardless of whether what happened over the weekend was a an incident that spiralled out of control, or whether it was a premeditated large scale operation of one side against the other, the truth is that only those who are not familiar with the situation, or if they are, refuse to accept the reality, ever doubted that this escalation of violence was bound to happen sooner or later.

For both Armenia and Azerbaijan the last forty eight hours have been testing, The certainties on the ground, surrounded by deeply dug trenches and fortified positions, have been challenged. Both sides claim to have "liberated" territory, and it is evident that their appetite is wetted to "liberate" more. There have been significant movements of troops and armaments closer to the combat zone. The temptation for either or both of the sides to escalate the violence is very high.

Whilst the territory that has changed hands so far is quite miniscule, consisting of a few barren hills and the rubble of abandoned hamlets, it has a psychological impact on both sides.

For Azerbaijan, the dream of liberating the territory that Armenia occupied during the war two decades ago seems today to be closer to realisation than it was last week, even if in reality what has been gained is by and large insignificant.

For Armenia the loss of this territory is also largely symbolic, but not to be underestimated either. It is seen as marking the end, or at least the beginning of the end, of the Armenian victory of the early 1990s. For this reason Armenians will want to ensure that they occupy some new territory to compensate for any lost. The loss of new territory will significantly rattle Baku and the Azerbaijanis will fight with all their might not to let it happen.

This explosive situation has all the ingredients necessary for an escalation of what is already a bad situation.

War however is not a solution for neither Armenia, nor Azerbaijan. There is unlikely ever to be a clear winner, and there is every chance that both sides will emerge as losers as they try to fight a costly conflict that neither side can afford. But so far the two sides have failed to muster the necessary courage to embark on peace.

In this dangerous moment the international community needs to step up its engagement with the Karabakh conflict, and the silver lining from the present crisis is that it shakes politicians and diplomats out of their inertia, and forces them to think about what needs to be done. Over the weekend the leaders of governments and international organisations lined up to call on Armenia and Azerbaijan to step back and show restraint. Well said, but not enough. Simply stopping the current wave of violence should not be the primary objective, even if it has to happen too. The focus needs to be on a solution to the core issues that underpin the conflict: the return of refugees and displaced persons; protection of the right of all regardless of their ethnicity; the respect of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Armenia; recognising the uniqueness of the Nagorno-Karabakh situation through a unique formula for its status in international law. For this to happen the international community must create the right conditions in which the sides can negotiate, and provide the right assistance to incentivise the sides to find a solution. It is a messy, costly and time-consuming process but this is the way forward on Karabakh if what we have seen this weekend, and worse, possibly much worse, is not to be repeated sooner or later.

France, Russia and the United States, the three co-Chair of the Minsk Process have assumed a special responsibility for dealing with this conflict. They now need to recognise that they have failed and to explore how best to move forward. On Tuesday they will meet with the wider Minsk Group. This will probably be the first time that the wider Group is being involved in a time of crisis. It is for the best. There are other players, such as the European Union, that need to be involved too. A reconfiguration of the peace process cannot be delayed any further.

None of this can be meaningful however if the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan do not themselves understand the need to move forward from the current impasse and danger. Over the last few days nationalistic chauvinism gripped both countries. The voices calling for calm and self-reflection were very isolated and far between. This mentality could be explained and justified two decades ago when Armenia and Azerbaijan were isolated and away from the mainstream of global communication. Today they are not, and every citizen should be able to judge for himself or herself the dangers and futility of more war, and the benefits of peace through negotiation and compromise.

War has ravaged the Caucasus over the last thirty years. It is now time to stop this cycle and turn the page. 

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research) and is based in Oxford (dennis@links-dar.org). He contributed this commentary to commonspace.eu

photo: The Mountains of Karabakh (image courtesy of La Stampa/Robert Travan).

 

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
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).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

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

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

7 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

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

21 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut