Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict Research Articles

Perceptions at War: Exploring Public Attitude Formation in the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict

Abstract The post-2020 escalations in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, culminating in the Azerbaijani military offensive of September 2023 and the subsequent mass exodus of the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, once again underscored the persistent deadlock in the peace process and the failure to achieve compromise. This article aims to analyze the genesis of maximalist attitudes within Armenian and Azerbaijani societies in the years preceding the 2020 war, as well as the factors contributing to the endurance of these attitudes in the years that followed. Drawing on the analysis of maximalist attitudes formation during the interwar period (1994–2020), the research delves into the obstacles encountered by peace activists and peacebuilders in their efforts to counter dominant nationalism, alongside other challenges and structural impediments in the peacebuilding process. Finally, the study investigates the determinants that shaped the post-war attitudes in Armenia and Azerbaijan preceding the pivotal events of September 2023.

The Second Karabakh War and the Dynamics of Relations Between the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation

The article examines the dynamics of development of relations between Armenia and Russia after the Second Karabakh War. Armenian-Russian relations are considered in the context of a comparative analysis of regional processes. In the context of the cooling of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Russia managed to implement a key policy of containment, as well as maneuver between Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, this policy became ineffective when Turkey actively intervened in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The article analyzes the factors that negatively influenced the revision of Russian foreign policy to the detriment of Armenia. The article substantiates the hypothesis that Russia was able to stop military operations in the Second Karabakh war in time to prevent the strengthening of Turkish influence in Azerbaijan. From the point of view of Russian interests, the most effective way to solve this problem was to deepen relations with Azerbaijan through a strategic alliance at the expense of Armenia.

Проблема «Зангезурского коридора» в современной политике Ирана и России на Южном Кавказе

For many decades, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was one of the most important processes in Transcaucasia. He had the most direct influence on both the geopolitical and trade and economic situation in the region. In addition, the protracted nature of the confrontation and the inability of Yerevan and Baku to find common ground have become the main obstacle to the development of regional logistics. Therefore, the events that have unfolded in Nagorno-Karabakh since 2020 and the subsequent reconciliation between the conflicting parties have raised the hope among many that all problems will soon become a thing of the past. At the same time, it has recently become obvious that a number of regional players have decided to take advantage of the current situation. In this case, we are talking about Iran, which is making every effort to increase its regional status, including through new trade, economic and logistics projects. One of them could be the so-called “Araks Corridor” or “Iranian Path”, which should finally bury the idea of building the long-suffering “Zangezur Corridor”. And this is especially important at the present stage for Iran’s foreign trade and economic policy, when, on the one hand, there is a process of relative stabilization in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, and, on the other, Iranian-Russian relations in the region are developing. The purpose of this article is to study the modern policies of Iran and Russia in the South Caucasus, in particular their position regarding the problem of the “Zangezur Corridor” in the context of a slight weakening of the confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The Main Stages of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict and the Consequences of the Conflict

The South Caucasus region has always been an important player in regional geopolitics, closely connected with the national interests and security of Russia, Iran, and Turkiye. Its significance increased significantly after the Soviet Union's collapse. The region is a strategically vital transport hub, where communication and trade routes from East to West (the ancient Silk Road) and from South to North intersect. However, ongoing conflicts between Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, as well as between Azerbaijan and Armenia, have hindered the region's economic development. These conflicts have partially blocked the region, which has crucially impacted its political development. The most dangerous conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. In 2020, Azerbaijan regained control of seven regions around Karabakh, which were occupied by Armenians during the first Armenian-Azerbaijani war in the early 1990s. In 2023, during a one-day special operation, Azerbaijan established full control over the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. The Azerbaijani army's victorious military operations have changed the balance of forces, opening up new opportunities for strengthening peace and developing economic, political, and cultural cooperation between the countries of the region. This paper examines how the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation impacted on the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasian region. The official and historical documentation as well as diplomatic reports and media outlets analyzed for these purposes. The comparative-descriptive method was applied to analyze the sources.

Transitional Justice in the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: Prospects and Challenges

Transitional Justice in the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: Prospects and Challenges

Պարենային անվտանգության ոլորտում ԵԱՏՄ երկրների համագործակցության զարգացման հնարավորությունները և ռիսկերը/ OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF FOOD SECURITY OF EAEU COUNTRIES

At present, the world is very concerned. This is connected with the policy of the formation of a new world order and the transfer of spheres of influence on the part of the great powers. The indefinite cessation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the unpredictable Russian-Ukrainian war, in which the USA and Western Europe participate in supporting Ukraine, the ongoing confrontations in the countries of the Middle East, especially in Syria, Israel and Yemen, the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran in them and, finally, China-Taiwan and the South, as well as the tension between North Korea, are serious concerns about a new world war. This situation, as well as threats of global climate change, seriously affect the normal state of international trade and people's well-being. Moreover, the implementation of the declared UN Sustainable Development Goals is under serious threat. Although the Republic of Armenia is a country with a small territory and a limited population, it is not isolated from world events and is integrated into the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), but it is to one degree or another subject to the influence of global and regional tensions. This influence is especially evident in the military, political and economic spheres. Nevertheless, the food supply sector is more sensitive, as it is directly related to the daily nutrition of the population, or, figuratively speaking, the provision of daily bread. This paper presents the state of food security in EAEU countries, trade in food products within the Union, in particular, opportunities for cooperation with Armenia and existing risks.

ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJIAN CONFLICT: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND POLITICAL ASPECT

The issue of the long-term Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict within the framework of the Nagorno-Karabakh region has been studied. The problem of the ethnic polemic of Nagorno-Karabakh as one of the main factors of the confrontation is considered, and the historical roots of its initiation are indicated. The issue of escalation between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s was analyzed and conclusions were drawn regarding a new wave of confrontation. The classification of official documents and materials for the analysis of the specified problem is given. The importance of the military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan due to the non-resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh region issue is emphasized not only for the Central Asian region, but for the whole world. The interest of certain external players in the need to solve the Karabakh problem is considered. The role of international actors in the framework of indirect participation, as well as peacekeeping mission, arbitration, etc. is evaluated. The current state of the military conflict is determined. The chronology and course of hostilities between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan are analyzed. The latest events of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region are considered and the main points of the dynamics of the confrontation are shown, as well as the main decisions made as a result of the anti-terrorist operation of the Azerbaijani army in the Nagorno-Karabash region are highlighted. Possible ways to stabilize the situation and settle the Karabakh conflict are identified, the involvement of civil society and communities on both sides to resolve the interstate problem is especially emphasized, and the importance of a comprehensive solution to both the political and humanitarian aspects of the conflict is emphasized. A significant role in the stabilization of the Nagorno-Karabakh region is given to international organizations in the role of mediators and development of realistic and mutually acceptable solutions.

УЧАСТЬ ЄС У ВРЕГУЛЮВАННІ ВІРМЕНО-АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСЬКОГО КОНФЛІКТУ ЗА НАГІРНО-КАРАБАСЬКИЙ РЕГІОН

The article highlights the reasons for the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The position of the European Union regarding this conflict is analyzed. It has been found that since the beginning of the conflict, the European Union has not actively participated in its settlement and its policy has been weak. The EU has often expressed its support for the negotiation process under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group. The change in the attitude of the EU to this conflict after the introduction of the Eastern Partnership program, which included both Armenia and Azerbaijan, is characterized. An assessment of the consideration of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict at the Eastern Partnership summits is given, namely, at the Eastern Partnership Summit in 2021, the EU’s attitude to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is changing, the EU’s participation in the peaceful settlement of the conflict is increasing. The importance of the created initiative «European Political Community» in the negotiation process regarding the settlement of this conflict was considered. In the course of the study, it was concluded that from 2021, the European Union will become an active participant in the negotiation process regarding the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU is further strengthening its mediation in the negotiation process. At the current stage, three rounds of negotiations between the parties to the conflict took place with the mediation of the EU, thus, the European Union is trying to reduce the influence of Russia in the (not) settlement of the conflict. In turn, from 2022, Armenia is also interested in greater influence of the EU in the negotiation process and at her request; the civilian mission of the European Union in Armenia – EUMA Armenia – was created. Through its presence, EUMA Armenia contributes to the security of people in conflict-affected areas of Armenia and makes an impact on the strengthening of trust on the ground. The country also contributes to the creation of an environment favorable to the normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan with EU support.

Армения и Нагорный Карабах: ценностный и поколенческий сдвиг

The Nagorno-Karabakh issue is well-studied in the schorarly literature. However, most works cover the dynamics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict or genesis of a South Caucasus de facto state. This article is devoted to the consideration of the phenomenon of Nagorno-Karabakh for the nation-state project of post-Soviet Armenia, its domestic and foreign policy agenda. The author considers it in the two historical contexts: the genesis of the Armenian state during the last years of the Soviet Union and in the first years after its demise, as well as the current socio-political situation. The article explains why the factor of Nagorno-Karabakh, which became the trigger for the struggle of the late Soviet Armenians for “miatsum” (the unification of the former Armenian SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijani SSR), has ceased to be a cementing element for the elite and society of today’s Armenia. The Nagorno-Karabakh consensus, around which the authorities and the opposition, as well as civil society institutions united, becomes the past. The informal taboo on the discussion of the Nagorno-Karabakh status beyond any form of state integration with Armenia has been lifted. It has become one of the publicly discussed issues. The author analyses these transformations with the help of updated methodological tools, rejecting “geopolitical determinism” and linking the fundamental transformation in the Armenian current agenda not only with radical military changes on the “line of contact” between the two conflicting states of the South Caucasus but, above all, with the value and generational shift within Armenia. Addressing the theory of “paradigm shift” by T. Kuhn and the “method of generations” by J. Ortega y Gasset, he concludes that the current unprecedented concessions to Baku on the part of Yerevan are not only a manifestation of weakness, voluntarism and a foreign policy U-turn of the current Armenian leadership to the West. In many ways, they are determined by the transformation in the moods of the elites and society of Armenia throughout the entire post-Soviet period. This approach allows us to trace and explain how and why the Republic, constituting its statehood around the “Karabakh idea” in the process of national self-determination, took the path of revision of the original goal-setting.

ГЕОПОЛІТИЧНІ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЇ НА ПІВДЕННОМУ КАВКАЗІ В УМОВАХ РОСІЙСЬКО-УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ВІЙНИ

The author made an attempt to comprehensively analyze the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war on the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus region. The evolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and its impact on the changing geopolitical environment in the South Caucasus region are considered. The reasons for the interest of global and regional international actors (USA, China, Russia, EU, UK, Turkey, Kazakhstan) in deepening cooperation with the states of the South Caucasus are analyzed.

External Factors of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict in the Context of the Second Karabakh War

Aim. To identify the features of the behavior of external actors in the South Caucasus during the Second Karabakh War and rank them according to the degree of influence on the events, outcomes, and settlement of the post-conflict situation.Tasks. To find out the main reasons for Armenia’s military defeat, as well as the extent of involvement in the armed conflict and post-conflict settlement of Turkey, Great Britain, Iran, the USA, France, the OSCE Minsk Group and the EU.Methods. Among the techniques and ways to achieve the stated goal of the study, the methods of comparative analysis, which allowed by comparing the degree of involvement and role in the conflict to identify beneficiaries and the most promising applicants for participation in post-conflict settlement; structural and functional analysis aimed at identifying connections, relationships and mediations between the participants of the events under consideration.Results. The analysis of the interested and motivated behavior of Turkey, Iran, the UK, the USA, France, the Minsk Group, and the EU in the 44-day armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was carried out. An attempt is made to rank external actors according to the degree of influence on the course and outcome of the war; the main reasons for Armenia’s military defeat are established; Iran’s behavior and role in the conditions of war and post-conflict settlement are characterized; Azerbaijan’s support in the conflict by the countries of the Turkic Council is shown; the involvement of Turkey and Great Britain in the war is established; The role of Russia in the end of the war was determined; the positions of the USA and France as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group were clarified; the EU’s application for mediation in the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani contradictions was assessed.Conclusions. Contrary to numerous opinions about the paralysis of Russia’s political will in the South Caucasus, it was Russia that, following the results of the Second Karabakh War, managed to strengthen its position and role in regional politics, unite its allies — Armenia and Azerbaijan — around it, inspire them with an understanding of the need to end armed confrontation in the conflict zone, and propose a realistic program of joint actions towards its political settlement.

Place-name wars in Karabakh: Russian Imperial maps and political legitimacy in the Caucasus

ABSTRACT Place names play important ideological role in the modern Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Karabakh. Both sides use toponymic evidence to claim a prior occupation of the disputed territory. Azerbaijan relies on the Russian maps to prove that the Armenian population are recent newcomers. Armenians point out to the medieval documents to prove the opposite. This article attempts to reconcile the contradictory evidence used by both sides by looking at the transformation of place-naming practises in the wake of the emergence of a modern bureaucratic state. I argue that before the rise of modern bureaucratic state in Europe the place-naming was not within the realm of the state interest. The Russian conquest brought the uniformity of toponymic landscape into Caucasus where several toponymic landscapes coexisted in time and space. This resulted in elevation of one landscape into an official landscape and silencing of the other.

Civic Dominion: Nation-Building in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan over 25 Years of Independence

AbstractThis article surveys nation-building in post-Soviet Azerbaijan over the country’s first quarter-century of restored independence. It examines the core dimensions of ethno-demographic and national minority issues, language policy, and the role of religion in the development of the state’s formal ideologyAzerbaycançılıq(Azerbaijanism). The article highlights the nexus of nation-building and regime-building as a dominant trend over the last two decades, generating what we term “civic dominion”: the domination of a regime tradition, legitimated through the imagery and ideology of civic nationhood. Finally, the article considers the role of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict as a long-standing exception to the ostensibly civic ethos of post-Soviet Azerbaijani nation-building.

Caucasus edition: Decentralized transnational network as a pivotal structure for peacebuilding in non-democratic environments

In 2021, only a few locally led peacebuilding institutions worked to build bridges across the Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict that had divided the two societies for over three decades. This stood in sharp contrast with the recent past, when the environment was saturated by civil society institutions promoting peace and cross-border co-operation. The reasons for the dissipation of the once-vibrant scene of institutionalized peacebuilding included the decreased European and US support for democratization and civil society, the crackdown on and stigmatization of peacebuilding, military escalation, and the Second Karabakh War. The collapse of the professionalized scene, however, was not the end of peacebuilding. As institutions retreated, decentralized online networks connecting Armenians and Azerbaijanis sprang into existence. The article explores the journey of Caucasus Edition, a peacebuilding journal, whose ongoing reflection and action cycle process led it to transform from a professional institution into a decentralized transnational network. It highlights the relative effectiveness of decentralized structures, particularly their resiliency and adaptability, compared to professionalized civil society institutions susceptible to cooptation or crackdown in non-democratic political environments.

Трансформация армяно-азербайджанского конфликта: исторический опыт и современное состояние

The military-political reconfiguration of the post-Soviet space that is comparable in its scale and possible consequences to the process of the collapse of the former USSR is taking place now. This development makes topical the study of the roots of the Eurasian conflict and the trajectories of its development. The author of the article has chosen the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict as an analytical pattern in order to reconceptualize some explanation models and redefine key definitions concerning it. The study represents a greater panoramic view on the spectrum of the Armenian-Azerbaijani disputes. Following E. Azar theoretical ideas, he identifies the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict as a protracted social one covering both ethnic, intercommunal, interstate, national and external dimensions. He also pays attention to the major concepts of the K. Deutsch communication theory. The author traces the spread of nationalism strategies in the South Caucasus in parallel with modernization, urbanization and growth of literacy. He connects the strengthening of these strategies with the first experience of Armenian and Azerbaijani nation-states in 1918–1920 and subsequent “Sovetization” of both republics. Particularly underlying the Soviet techniques that address the nationalism, the author concludes that the specific political experience in the USSR promoted ethno-territorial nationalism. Thus, by the eve of the Soviet Union’s demise both republics were ready to launch new editions of their nation-states. Traditionally, scholars, while addressing the confrontation, oppose the Karabakh Armenian fight for national liberation and Armenian occupation of some Azerbaijani areas. The author examines the particularities of the two aforementioned formats of the conflict after the dissolution of the USSR and offers an explanation framework to the new realities of the current state of this conflict after the “second Karabakh war” of 2020.

Requiem for the Unipolar Moment in Nagorny Karabakh

The Minsk Group, led by the United States, France, and Russia, has brokered the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict since the mid-1990s after Armenia-backed secessionists in the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic won the first Karabakh war of 1992–94. That mediation embodied the ideals of the mid-1990s unipolar moment, which assumed that liberalized markets and democratic transitions would converge internally to resolve legacy conflicts in postsocialist states while bringing them into convergence externally with Euro-Atlantic nations. Those assumptions withered away over the next quarter-century. Neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia transitioned to liberal democracy. Backed by an increasingly assertive Turkey, Azerbaijan prevailed in a bloody war in 2020. This time, the regional authoritarian powers, Russia and Turkey, are overseeing what could be a test case for a new form of “illiberal peace.”

The Second Karabakh War through the Prism of the Most Influential British Press, 27 September-10 November 2020

This article deals with the analysis of the coverage of the Second Karabagh War by the influential British press. The mass media plays an important role in shaping or influencing people’s opinions on conflicts. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh Conflict is one of the conflicts that has got and presently is getting international press coverage. The news coverage has great importance in informing the world how Armenia invaded and destroyed Karabakh. And as the British press is enough influential in western countries and plays an important role in shaping the opinions, its coverage of the conflict is very important. Another important point is that the United Kingdom has long been one of the important geostrategic actors in the system of international relations. Although the UK's international influence is relatively weak in modern times, the country is still considered one of the world's power centers. 
 The United Kingdom is also home to concepts such as parliamentarism, democracy, liberalism, and freedom of thought, speech, and press. All these factors make the analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the British press especially relevant. One more important fact that is worth to mention that Azerbaijan is a country rich in oil and gas reserves. This fact draws the attention of many individuals and legal entities in the United Kingdom, including BP, to Azerbaijan. The economic interests of transnational companies coincide with the development trends of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, as a result, take different directions. Taking this into account, Azerbaijan is objectively interested in gaining access to the political and intellectual elite of the United Kingdom through these individuals and legal entities. The links of transnational companies to Azerbaijan's national security are one of the subjects of research in the British press. This, in turn, increases the relevance of the study of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the British press.

АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСЬКА РЕСПУБЛІКА В ЕПІЦЕНТРІ ГЕОПОЛІТИЧНОЇ БОРОТЬБИ НА ПІВДЕННОМУ КАВКАЗІ

Завдяки своїм запасам нафти й газу Каспійський басейн перебував у колі геополітичних інтересів понад 30 держав регіону та світу. Не випадково лідери прикаспійських держав розглядають вуглеводневі ресурси Каспію як інструмент благополуччя своїх країн, а також як гарант стабільності й незалежності в регіоні. Водно- час прикаспійські держави (окрім Росії) прагнуть поповнити ряди рівноправних суб’єктів міжнародного права, поклавши край своїй політичній та економічній залежності від Росії у зв’язку з нафтовим фактором. Відомі політичні зміни, що відбулися в 90-х рр. ХХ ст., привели до створення трьох республік (Азербайджану, Грузії та Вірменії), які взяли різні напрями в реалізації зовнішньої політики. Регіон перетворився на арену боротьби великих держав за каспійську нафту та характеризується геополітичним суперництвом. Головними учасниками цієї боротьби стали Росія, США, Туреччина та Іран. Після розпаду СРСР Росія вела боротьбу за відновлення втрачених позицій і спільно з Іраном – за недопущення країн Заходу до нафти Азербайджану. Тим часом США приєдналися до боротьби за використання енергетичних запасів регіону, спрямованої на ослаблення в ньому позиції Росії, ізоляцію Ірану та встановлення за допомогою стратегічного партнера Азербайджану – Туреччи- ни – свого впливу на Південному Кавказі. В одному зі стратегічно важливих регіонів світу почалася боротьба за нафту та геополітичний вплив між великими державами Південного Кавказу, яка поступово переросла в потуж- ну інформаційну війну. Сьогодні США, Росія, Туреччина та Іран відіграють ключову роль в інформаційній війні на Південному Кавказі, хоча кількість її учасників набагато більша. Саме в ході цієї боротьби за ресурси вірмено- азербайджанський конфлікт через Нагірний Карабах опинився в руках протиборчих сторін як інструмент впливу на Азербайджан. Однак у результаті 44-денної війни Азербайджан припинив 30-річну окупацію та створив нову геополітичну ситуацію на Південному Кавказі.

ERMƏNİSTAN-AZƏRBAYCAN, DAĞLIQ QARABAĞ MÜNAQİŞƏSİ ZƏMİNİNDƏ İNSAN VƏ VƏTƏNDAŞ HÜQUQ VƏ AZADLIQLARININ POZUNTULARININ TƏHLİLİ

As a result of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which began with unfounded territorial claims by Armenian nationalists, the Caucasus has become one of the hottest regions in the world. The international legal manifestations of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are clearly visible. Thus, the occupation of Azerbaijani lands, the living conditions of people expelled from the occupied territories, which are reflected in international agreements, freedom, property, non-torture, etc. Violation of Armenia's rights clearly shows Armenia's violation of the norms and principles of international law. The restoration of a comprehensive, just peace in the Caucasus can be achieved only on the basis of adherence to the universally recognized norms and principles of international law. Key words: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan, human rights violations, international law, international legal manifestations of the conflict

The Armenian duduk resounds in Artsakh

Throughout its history, Artsakh had to guard against the external threats of Neo-Ottomanism. At the present time it is especially relevant. September 27, 2020 marks escalation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh – which means Artsakh in Armenian. This led to six weeks of cease fire, humanitarian disaster, which killed many people and destroyed cultural and religious heritage of Artsakh. The mountainous region is surrounded by Azerbaijani land, although populated by Armenians. Due to the political novelty of this issue, the author employed analytical and descriptive method. The acquired results demonstrate that the history repeats itself in Neo-Ottomanism, which has been a threat to Artsakh and Armenia since its emergence until the present day. In recent years, the concept of reunification with Armenia, as well as the independence of Artsakh, outlined the prospects for the future. The third solution to the conflict became the ceasefire agreement of 9 November 2020, nobly negotiated by Russia to save Armenia from military collapse. However, this solution is more painful than the status-quo. The main conclusion consists in the statement that the international community should be more vigilant and prevent the expansion of such threats.