The underlying drivers of instability within the region are multi-faceted. The unresolved status of Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, has fueled decades of conflict and mistrust. Post-2020, Azerbaijan’s reclamation of territory, bolstered by Turkish support and significant military modernization, has dramatically altered the security landscape. Russia’s diminished influence, a consequence of the Ukraine conflict and subsequent withdrawal of peacekeeping forces, has created a power vacuum, exploited by both Baku and, to a lesser extent, Yerevan. Furthermore, the ongoing economic hardship faced by Armenia, exacerbated by the blockade and hampered economic growth, contributes to internal political fragility and reduces its bargaining power on the international stage. Recent data from the World Bank indicates Armenia’s GDP contracted by 13.4% in 2023, highlighting the profound economic repercussions.
Historical context reveals a complex tapestry of treaties, alliances, and Soviet-era designs that ultimately failed to prevent the current crisis. The 1994 ceasefire agreement following the First Karabakh War, brokered by the OSCE Minsk Group, established a fragile status quo, predicated on the principle of a peaceful settlement. However, the underlying issues – namely, the territorial dispute and the lack of a robust international framework – remained unresolved. The 2020 Second Karabakh War, triggered by Azerbaijan’s offensive, exposed the limitations of existing agreements and resulted in a significant shift in the balance of power. “The failure of multilateral diplomacy has been a recurring theme throughout this entire crisis,” notes Professor Anna Chertanova, a specialist in Caucasus geopolitics at the Institute of Strategic Studies, “the current approach – largely transactional and lacking a comprehensive vision – is insufficient to address the deep-seated challenges.”
Key stakeholders include Azerbaijan, under the assertive leadership of President Aliyev, who views the restoration of territorial control as a fundamental national objective. Turkey, providing Azerbaijan with military and economic support, holds considerable influence over Baku’s foreign policy. Armenia, led by Prime Minister Pashinyan, seeks to preserve its territorial integrity, foster democratic reforms, and secure external support – primarily from the UK and, to a lesser extent, the EU. The European Union, while expressing concern over the humanitarian situation, has been hampered by a lack of consensus among member states regarding a unified approach and the reluctance of some nations to fully confront Azerbaijan’s actions. Russia, despite its diminished role, continues to maintain a strategic interest in the region, primarily through its security relationship with Armenia. “The absence of a credible guarantor power has amplified the risks of escalation,” argues Dr. Dimitri Volkov, Senior Analyst at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. “Without a robust and impartial mechanism for conflict resolution, the potential for further violence remains alarmingly high.”
Recent developments over the past six months paint a picture of intensifying pressure on Armenia. The continued blockade of the sole border crossing at Metsamor has severely restricted the flow of goods and services, further crippling the Armenian economy. Azerbaijan has consistently asserted its right to control the crossing, citing security concerns. Furthermore, a series of incidents involving Armenian military personnel crossing the border into Azerbaijani territory has resulted in clashes and heightened tensions. The UK’s announced “Strategic Partnership” with Armenia, as outlined in a joint statement following the EPC summit, represents a tangible demonstration of continued support, encompassing defence cooperation, economic assistance, and efforts to bolster Armenia’s democratic institutions. However, the details of this partnership remain somewhat vague, and its effectiveness will depend on the willingness of all parties to engage in constructive dialogue.
Looking forward, the short-term (next 6 months) likely scenario involves continued instability, punctuated by sporadic clashes and the persistent humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh. The blockade is almost certain to remain in place, further jeopardizing Armenia’s economy. The UK-Armenia Strategic Partnership could offer a crucial lifeline, providing Armenia with critical resources and bolstering its defense capabilities. Longer-term (5-10 years), the trajectory hinges on several factors. A comprehensive resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – potentially involving a negotiated settlement and the establishment of a power-sharing arrangement – remains a distant prospect. However, increased international pressure on Azerbaijan, coupled with sustained support for Armenia’s democratic reforms, could gradually shift the balance of power. The return of a credible international peacekeeping force remains a highly improbable outcome, but continuous diplomatic engagement and the expansion of economic partnerships are arguably the most viable paths towards a more stable and secure South Caucasus. “Ultimately,” Volkov adds, “Armenia’s survival as a sovereign state requires a fundamental reassessment of its geopolitical strategy and a willingness to embrace partnerships that transcend traditional alliances.” The challenge for policymakers is to navigate this complex landscape with strategic precision, recognizing that Armenia’s fate is intrinsically linked to the broader security dynamics of the region.
The situation demands reflection on the limitations of existing diplomatic frameworks and the urgent need for innovative approaches to conflict resolution. The ongoing struggle in the South Caucasus represents a critical test of international resolve and a stark reminder of the enduring consequences of unresolved geopolitical disputes.