The First Nagorno-Karabakh War and the Unresolved Conflict
6. The First War, 1988–1994
The First Nagorno-Karabakh War developed from local clashes and paramilitary confrontations into a major conflict involving organized Armenian and Azerbaijani forces.
Following the Soviet collapse in 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian leadership declared independence.
No United Nations member state recognized the self-declared republic as sovereign.
Armenian forces eventually gained control over most of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and seven surrounding Azerbaijani districts, wholly or partly.
These surrounding districts included Lachin, Kelbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, and Qubadli.
The Lachin Corridor provided a vital land connection between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
The war caused approximately 30,000 deaths, although precise totals remain uncertain, and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.
Azerbaijani civilians fled or were expelled from Armenian-controlled territories. Armenian civilians were displaced from Azerbaijani-controlled areas.
The conflict included serious violations of international humanitarian law.
One of the most notorious atrocities was the February 1992 killing of Azerbaijani civilians fleeing Khojaly. Human rights organizations documented the deaths of civilians and the responsibility of Armenian forces for attacks on those fleeing.
The war also involved attacks on Armenian civilians, hostage-taking, indiscriminate shelling, and destruction of settlements.
A Russian-mediated ceasefire, commonly associated with the Bishkek Protocol, took hold in May 1994.
It stopped major military operations but did not establish a comprehensive peace settlement.
7. The Territorial Situation After 1994
From 1994 until 2020, the Armenian side maintained control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories captured during the First War.
The self-declared Republic of Artsakh developed its own governing institutions, including a presidency, legislature, courts, police, and armed forces.
It operated with extensive economic, political, and military support from Armenia.
Azerbaijan maintained that the territory was under occupation and that its territorial integrity had been violated.
The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolutions 822, 853, 874, and 884 in 1993, calling for cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of occupying forces from specified areas.
These resolutions became important elements of Azerbaijan's diplomatic position.
The Armenian side emphasized the right of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian population to self-determination and argued that its security required guarantees against renewed persecution or military attack.
The fundamental disagreement remained unresolved: Azerbaijan insisted upon sovereignty over the territory, while Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian leadership sought independence or another status outside Azerbaijani control.
8. The OSCE Minsk Group and Failed Negotiations
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe established the Minsk process in 1992 to facilitate negotiations.
France, Russia, and the United States subsequently served as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Over the following decades, diplomats explored numerous settlement formulas.
Proposals generally addressed territorial withdrawal, interim arrangements, security guarantees, the return of displaced persons, transport links, peacekeeping, and the determination of Nagorno-Karabakh's final political status.
The Madrid Principles, first presented in 2007 and subsequently revised, became a major framework.
Their elements included the return of surrounding territories to Azerbaijani control, interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, a corridor connecting it to Armenia, eventual determination of final status through a legally binding expression of will, refugee and displaced-person returns, and international security guarantees.
No comprehensive agreement emerged.
Disagreements over the sequence of concessions, the legal meaning of self-determination, the status of the Lachin Corridor, and the future of Nagorno-Karabakh prevented a settlement.
9. The Militarization of the Conflict
During the years after 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan maintained heavily fortified positions along the Line of Contact.
Trenches, artillery emplacements, observation posts, minefields, and defensive structures developed across the region.
Sniper fire, artillery exchanges, raids, and periodic escalations caused recurring casualties.
Azerbaijan invested heavily in modernizing its armed forces, supported by substantial revenues from oil and natural gas exports.
It purchased advanced weapons from several countries, including Israel, Russia, and Turkey.
Armenia also acquired modern equipment, particularly from Russia, but faced greater financial constraints.
The growing disparity in military expenditure and the introduction of advanced unmanned systems altered the strategic balance.
10. The Four-Day War of April 2016
In April 2016, major fighting erupted along the Line of Contact.
The confrontation, known as the Four-Day War, resulted in significant casualties on both sides.
Azerbaijan captured limited territory, including positions of tactical importance.
The fighting revealed weaknesses in Armenian defenses and demonstrated Azerbaijan's increasing military capabilities.
Although the confrontation ended quickly, it reinforced the possibility that the frozen conflict could develop into a much larger war.
11. The July 2020 Border Clashes
In July 2020, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces clashed near the internationally recognized Armenia–Azerbaijan border in the Tavush–Tovuz area, north of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The fighting involved artillery, drones, and other weapons.
Military personnel and civilians were killed.
Among the Azerbaijani casualties was Major General Polad Hashimov, whose death provoked widespread public reaction in Azerbaijan.
Demonstrations in Baku included demands for a stronger military response.
The clashes further intensified tensions between the two countries.
They also highlighted the strategic importance of the border region near major transport and energy infrastructure.
The precise sequence of events that initiated the July confrontation remained disputed.
12. The Political Climate Before September 2020
By September 2020, diplomatic relations had deteriorated sharply.
Azerbaijani leaders increasingly expressed frustration with the absence of territorial progress through negotiations.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government, which came to power following Armenia's 2018 Velvet Revolution, pursued a different political style from its predecessors.
Statements concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, including Pashinyan's 2019 declaration that Artsakh was Armenia, generated strong reactions in Azerbaijan.
The Armenian leadership continued to emphasize security and self-determination.
The Azerbaijani leadership insisted that Armenian forces withdraw from Azerbaijani territory.
Military exercises, weapons deliveries, and increasingly confrontational rhetoric contributed to a dangerous environment.
By late September, the conditions for a major escalation were present.