Nagorno-Karabakh and Beyond: Key Developments in the Azerbaijan–Armenia Conflict (2020–2025)

 

Introduction:

The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia remains one of Europe’s longest-running security challenges. The 2020 war reshaped control on the ground and set the stage for a new phase defined more by diplomacy, humanitarian concerns, and fragile ceasefires than by large-scale combat alone. Since then, a mix of high-stakes diplomacy, sporadic clashes, population displacements, and strategic realignments has continued to influence the region’s future. This post outlines the major developments, the actors involved, and what they may mean for 2025 and beyond.

1) What changed after the 2020 conflict

- Ground shifts and a new status quo: The 2020 war ended with a Russian-brokered ceasefire that left Azerbaijan in control of several territories around Nagorno-Karabakh. A Russian peacekeeping mission was deployed to the region, creating a new security architecture for the disputed space around Nagorno-Karabakh (also known as Artsakh).

- A different kind of pressure: With battlefield gains settled, the conflict moved into a phase dominated by diplomacy, border management, and demarcation issues. International actors shifted toward facilitating talks and monitoring human rights and humanitarian conditions, while the sense of strategic competition among wider regional players intensified.

2) Key developments since 2021–2024

- The Lachin corridor and humanitarian dimensions: A critical artery linking Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia—the Lachin corridor—became a focal point of humanitarian and political tension. Control over this corridor affected access for people, aid, and goods, highlighting how civilian needs intersect with strategic leverage. The corridor’s status has repeatedly become a flashpoint in periodic negotiations and protests, underscoring how ordinary life is intertwined with the broader political contest.

- Frontline incidents and risk of escalation: Despite the ceasefire, periodic clashes and exchanges of fire have continued along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border and around Nagorno-Karabakh. Each incident raises concerns about broader escalation, testing the resolve of the peacekeeping framework and international mediation efforts.

- Humanitarian and governance concerns in Artsakh: The people of Nagorno-Karabakh have faced displacement, limited access to services, and questions about governance under external security guarantees. International humanitarian organizations have sought access and assurances for essential services, while local institutions and communities navigate changes in administration, mobility, and daily life.

- Diplomacy and the search for a comprehensive settlement: Diplomats from regional and international actors—including Russia, the European Union, the United States, and France—have pursued a path toward a more lasting peace agreement and a framework for border delimitation and demarcation. Talks have emphasized security guarantees, rights of communities, and the need for verifiable ceasefires, even as trust between the sides remains fragile.

- The role of external powers: Russia remains a key regional actor with peacekeeping responsibilities and a stake in the broader security architecture of the South Caucasus. The European Union and the United States have sought to re-energize mediation efforts, support confidence-building measures, and push for humanitarian access. Turkey, a close ally of Azerbaijan, has also influenced the regional dynamic through diplomatic support and political messaging. The balance among these powers continues to shape both the tempo and the content of negotiations.

3) What this means for civilians and everyday life

- Access and mobility: The security environment, along with blockades or closures of key corridors, has a direct impact on displaced people, local trade, and access to health and education services. Humanitarian corridors and predictable travel routes are central to reducing hardship.

- Identity, memory, and governance: The evolving post-conflict space raises questions about governance, language, cultural heritage, and community rights. Confidence-building measures and inclusive governance arrangements are frequently highlighted in mediation discussions as prerequisites for long-term stability.

- Security vs. diplomacy: While ground operations have diminished since 2020, the risk of sudden escalations remains whenever political signals or miscalculations occur. A robust, verifiable ceasefire plus durable diplomatic commitments are seen by most observers as essential to protecting civilians.

4) What to watch in 2025

- Delimitation and demarcation talks: Expect continued emphasis on agreeing where borders lie on the ground. Delimitation (where lines are drawn) and demarcation (placing markers on the ground) are technical yet politically sensitive steps that influence future sovereignty and minority rights.

- Humanitarian access and rights monitoring: International agencies and human rights organizations will likely press for unimpeded humanitarian access, transparent reporting, and protections for civilians in Artsakh and along the borders.

- Regional energy and economic dynamics: The wider regional context—energy routes, transit corridors, and post-conflict economic integration—will influence the calculus of all parties. Economic incentives often play a role in shaping how space is controlled or shared.

- Domestic political pressures: Leaders in both countries must balance internal pressures with external mediation efforts. Domestic audiences may influence how concessionary terms are framed publicly, affecting the pace and direction of talks.

- The role of external mediators: Russia’s position, along with EU and US engagement, will continue to shape the framework and incentives for a lasting settlement. Watch for concrete proposals on security guarantees, minority rights, and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

5) A suggested way forward (commonsense ideas cited by observers)

- A credible and verifiable ceasefire: Strengthening mechanisms to monitor and enforce ceasefires, with clear penalties for violations, remains foundational.

- A comprehensive peace agreement: Beyond tactical agreements, a legally binding framework addressing security, governance, rights, and border arrangements could reduce ambiguity and prevent drift toward renewed conflict.

- Confidence-building measures: Steps such as humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges, and joint humanitarian initiatives can build trust at the community level while diplomacy progresses.

- Economic and cultural engagement: Incremental steps that improve connectivity, trade, and cultural exchange can help normalize relations and reduce the long-term incentives for conflict.

Conclusion

The Azerbaijan–Armenia conflict has entered a phase where diplomacy, humanitarian considerations, and regional power dynamics are as important as battlefield outcomes. The next steps—whether a comprehensive peace agreement, successful border demarcation, or renewed confidence-building—will shape the security and daily lives of people in both nations for years to come. While the path remains complex and non-linear, sustained international engagement, transparent humanitarian access, and domestic political leadership committed to peaceful settlement offer the best chance for stability.