Armenia Azerbaijan Clashes and the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict

The Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh was one of the longest-running disputes to emerge from the collapse of the Soviet Union. For more than three decades, it produced wars, ceasefires, displacement, diplomatic efforts, and repeated border crises. The situation changed dramatically after Azerbaijan’s September 2023 military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent departure of more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians to Armenia. By 2025 and 2026, the conflict had entered a new phase. Armenia and Azerbaijan moved from recurring military confrontation toward a formal peace process. In August 2025, their foreign ministers initialed a draft agreement on the establishment of peace and interstate relations in Washington. On the first anniversary of that summit in August 2026, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the United States issued a joint statement describing the process as a foundation for ending decades of conflict. This does not mean every political, humanitarian, border, transport, property, or security question has disappeared. But it does mean that a blog framed around a single 2021 border clash no longer reflects the current situation. This guide explains the conflict’s origins, the wars of the 1990s and 2020, the 2021–2022 border crises, the 2023 takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh, the mass displacement that followed, and the peace process that developed through 2025–2026.

From a Late-Soviet Territorial Dispute to the First Nagorno-Karabakh War

The modern conflict grew from competing Armenian and Azerbaijani claims over Nagorno-Karabakh, an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan that had an ethnic-Armenian majority during the late Soviet period. As Soviet authority weakened, demands for the region’s transfer to Armenia, communal violence and armed mobilization escalated into war. The first conflict left Armenian forces controlling Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani districts, while large numbers of Armenians and Azerbaijanis were displaced. Nagorno-Karabakh is a mountainous region in the South Caucasus. Internationally, it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but for most of the post-Soviet period it was populated predominantly by ethnic Armenians and governed by Armenian-backed separatist authorities outside Baku’s control. The dispute combined several issues: territorial sovereignty;; ethnic identity;; self-determination;; security;; refugee and displaced-person claims;; historical memory;; regional competition involving Russia and Turkey..

Because these issues overlapped, the conflict could not be reduced simply to religion, even though Armenia is predominantly Christian and Azerbaijan is predominantly Muslim. The central dispute was territorial and political, shaped by ethnicity, competing national narratives, and the legacy of Soviet borders. How the Conflict Began in the Late Soviet Period Under the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh was organized as an autonomous oblast within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. In the late 1980s, as Soviet political controls weakened, Armenian activists in Nagorno-Karabakh pushed for the region to be transferred to Soviet Armenia. This triggered escalating political confrontation, communal violence, population movements, and eventually armed conflict.

After Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent in 1991, the dispute developed into a full-scale interstate and separatist war. The First Nagorno-Karabakh War The first major war lasted from the late Soviet period into the early 1990s and ended with a 1994 ceasefire. By the end of that war, Armenian forces controlled most of Nagorno-Karabakh and several surrounding Azerbaijani districts. The war created large-scale displacement on both sides. Hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas, while Armenians also fled Azerbaijan. The ceasefire stopped most fighting but did not produce a final political settlement. The OSCE Minsk Process For many years, international negotiations were conducted through the OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by France, Russia, and the United States. The diplomatic process attempted to reconcile several principles: territorial integrity;; non-use of force;; self-determination;; security guarantees;; return of displaced persons;; future status arrangements.. Negotiations produced proposals but no final agreement. Meanwhile, the frontline remained heavily militarized. Why the 1994 Ceasefire Was Unstable The ceasefire froze the conflict rather than resolving it. Several conditions made renewed war possible: Azerbaijan rejected the loss of internationally recognized territory.; Armenian and Karabakh authorities feared losing security and political control.; Displaced Azerbaijani communities maintained claims to return.; Military spending increased.; Periodic shootings and clashes continued.; The sides disagreed over sequencing: territory, status, refugees, and security..

The absence of a political settlement allowed the military balance to become increasingly important. The Four-Day War of 2016 In April 2016, major fighting broke out along the line of contact. The clashes lasted several days and resulted in territorial changes and casualties on both sides. The episode demonstrated that the 1994 ceasefire could not be assumed to prevent a new war.

The 2020 War Changed the Military and Territorial Balance

The OSCE – 2020 Ceasefire and Minsk Group Statement captures the international context around the ceasefire period, but the central fact is that Azerbaijan’s 2020 offensive reversed much of the territorial outcome of the first war. Azerbaijan regained the surrounding districts and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, while Russian peacekeepers were deployed along key routes and around the remaining Armenian-populated areas. A much larger war began on September 27, 2020. For six weeks, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces fought with artillery, drones, missiles, armor, and infantry. Azerbaijan made major territorial gains, including the strategically and symbolically important city of Shusha/Shushi. The fighting ended after a trilateral statement by the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia on November 9–10, 2020. What the 2020 Ceasefire Changed The 2020 agreement transformed the territorial map. Azerbaijan regained:

territories around Nagorno-Karabakh that had been controlled by Armenian forces;; significant parts of the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region itself.. Russian peacekeepers were deployed to parts of Nagorno-Karabakh and along the Lachin corridor connecting the region with Armenia. The ceasefire ended the war, but several major questions remained unresolved. Casualties and Human Cost of the 2020 War Thousands of soldiers and civilians were killed in the 2020 fighting. The war also created new displacement, destroyed infrastructure, and intensified disputes over prisoners, missing persons, cultural heritage, and control of territory. One of the mistakes in older reporting was to quote an approximate total death toll without explaining that figures varied by source and continued to be revised after the war. For historical analysis, it is better to state that the war caused several thousand military deaths on each side plus civilian casualties rather than presenting one rounded number as permanently definitive.

Why Fighting Continued After the 2020 Ceasefire The 2020 agreement did not settle the Armenia–Azerbaijan interstate border. Clashes continued in 2021 and 2022, including serious confrontations away from Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Disputes involved: border demarcation;; military positions;; transport routes;; detained soldiers;; access to Nagorno-Karabakh;; interpretation of the 2020 statement.. This is the context in which the November 2021 clash described in the original version of this post occurred. The November 2021 Border Clash In November 2021, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces fought along sections of the international border. Both governments accused the other of initiating the confrontation. Armenia reported deaths, injuries, and captured soldiers. Azerbaijan also reported military casualties. Russia helped broker a ceasefire. At the time, the clash looked like another warning that the 2020 settlement remained fragile. That was accurate then, but later events changed the conflict much more dramatically.

Border Fighting, the Lachin Corridor and the 2023 Exodus

After 2020, the conflict did not become stable. Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to clash along their internationally recognized border, and the Lachin Corridor became the focus of a prolonged crisis affecting access to Nagorno-Karabakh. In September 2023 Azerbaijan launched a short military operation that ended the de facto Armenian authorities’ ability to maintain control. More than 100,000 ethnic Armenians then left Nagorno-Karabakh for Armenia. The UNHCR – Armenia Rapid Needs Assessment Following September 2023 Displacement documents the scale and immediate humanitarian needs created by that movement. Large-scale clashes erupted again in September 2022, this time along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border. The violence caused substantial military casualties and raised fears of a wider interstate war. International diplomatic activity increased, including engagement by the European Union, United States, Russia, and other actors. The Lachin Corridor Crisis The Lachin corridor was the main route connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia after the 2020 war. Access became increasingly restricted from late 2022 into 2023. Armenian authorities and international humanitarian organizations warned about shortages and humanitarian conditions inside Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan argued that it was exercising sovereignty and raised concerns about the use of the route for prohibited purposes. The dispute over access became one of the most serious issues preceding the September 2023 military operation. Azerbaijan’s September 2023 Operation On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, describing it as an anti-terrorist measure. The operation lasted roughly a day before the local Armenian authorities accepted a ceasefire. The military balance had shifted decisively. The separatist administration agreed to disarm, and Azerbaijan reestablished effective control over the region. The Departure of More Than 100,000 Ethnic Armenians The most important humanitarian consequence followed immediately.

During the last week of September 2023, more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians left Nagorno-Karabakh for Armenia. UNHCR’s rapid needs assessment recorded 101,848 refugees registered in Armenia by October 19, 2023. The scale was enormous relative to Armenia’s population. UNHCR described the arrivals as roughly 3% of Armenia’s population. Many refugees needed: housing;; healthcare;; income support;; school places;; documentation;; psychological support;; long-term integration assistance.. What Happened to the Nagorno-Karabakh Authorities? After Azerbaijan took control, the Armenian-backed separatist administration announced steps toward dissolution. Senior former officials were detained by Azerbaijan, and the political entity that had governed the region for decades ceased to exercise territorial control. From a practical territorial perspective, the post-2023 conflict was no longer the same “frozen conflict” that had existed after 1994. International Law and Recognition Throughout the post-Soviet period, the international community generally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. At the same time, international diplomacy also addressed the security and rights of the ethnic Armenian population. The conflict therefore involved a difficult relationship between: Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity;; the political aspirations of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians;; human security;; return and displacement claims;; regional peace.. Armenia’s Changing Position In the years following the 2020 war, the Armenian government increasingly emphasized mutual recognition of territorial integrity as part of a peace agreement.

This represented an important shift away from the earlier focus on determining a separate political status for Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan’s Position Azerbaijan consistently argued that the conflict concerned the restoration of sovereignty over internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory. After the 2023 operation, Baku declared that the territorial question had been resolved. The remaining diplomatic agenda increasingly focused on interstate relations with Armenia rather than a negotiated autonomous status for Nagorno-Karabakh. What Happened to Russian Peacekeepers? Russia had been the dominant external security actor after the 2020 ceasefire. But Moscow’s influence weakened as the regional balance changed. Russian peacekeepers began leaving after Azerbaijan regained full control of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the post-2023 diplomatic process increasingly involved direct Armenian–Azerbaijani talks and Western mediation. Turkey’s Role Turkey is Azerbaijan’s closest strategic partner and supported Baku strongly during the 2020 war. Turkish–Azerbaijani military, economic, and political cooperation has been a major feature of the regional balance. Armenia has also pursued a separate normalization process with Turkey, although that relationship remains affected by historical and regional disputes. The European Union’s Role The European Union became more active in Armenia–Azerbaijan diplomacy after 2020. EU-facilitated meetings focused on:

border delimitation;; transport connections;; mutual recognition of territorial integrity;; humanitarian concerns;; a future peace agreement.. The EU also deployed a civilian monitoring mission in Armenia. The United States and the Peace Process Washington also hosted negotiations and ministerial talks. The most important recent milestone came in August 2025. At a White House meeting, the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers initialed a draft Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Inter-State Relations. The text, subsequently published by Armenia and Azerbaijan, set out principles for peaceful interstate relations and mutual recognition.

The 2025–2026 Peace Process: Major Progress, but Not Yet a Fully Ratified Treaty

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia – Initialed Armenia–Azerbaijan Peace Agreement, 2025 and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan – Peace Agreement Initialing, 2025 record the most important diplomatic breakthrough: the draft Agreement on Establishment of Peace and Inter-State Relations was initialed in Washington in August 2025. That step marked agreement on the text, but it should not be described as the same thing as a fully signed and ratified peace treaty. The Armenia–Azerbaijan–United States Joint Statement, August 2026 describes the one-year anniversary of the White House summit and emphasizes progress in trade, connectivity and implementation of the 2025 joint declaration. It also states that the two sides remain committed to sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders. As of September 2026, however, the safest wording is that Armenia and Azerbaijan are in an advanced peace-normalization process rather than that every legal, border and humanitarian question has been conclusively settled. On August 8, 2025, Armenia and Azerbaijan initialed the draft peace agreement in Washington in the presence of their leaders and the U.S. president. The two sides also signed a joint appeal concerning closure of the OSCE Minsk Process and related structures.

This was historically significant because the Minsk framework had been associated with Nagorno-Karabakh diplomacy for decades. Where Things Stood in August 2026 On August 10, 2026, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the United States issued a joint statement marking the first anniversary of the Washington summit. The statement said the 2025 summit had created a foundation for ending decades of conflict and expressed commitment to building on the peace process.

This was a very different diplomatic environment from the repeated armed clashes of 2021 and 2022.

What Still Has to Be Resolved

Not necessarily. Even after a formal peace framework advances, difficult issues can remain. These include: final legal implementation of the peace agreement;; border delimitation and demarcation;; transport corridors and transit arrangements;; detainees and missing persons;; refugee and property claims;; cultural heritage;; security guarantees;; domestic political opposition.. Peace agreements can reduce the risk of war without immediately resolving every historical grievance. The Refugee Question The 2023 displacement remains one of the most important unresolved humanitarian consequences. Ethnic Armenians who left Nagorno-Karabakh have questions about: return;; property rights;; security;; citizenship;; compensation;; long-term integration in Armenia.. Azerbaijani displaced communities from the earlier wars also have long-standing claims concerning return and reconstruction in territories regained by Azerbaijan. Any durable peace will need to address competing displacement histories carefully and without treating one community’s losses as erasing the other’s. Why Religion Is Not the Best Explanation The original version of this article highlighted that Azerbaijan is Muslim-majority and Armenia is Christian-majority. That fact is true, but it can create the misleading impression that the conflict was primarily a religious war. The central drivers were: territory;; national identity;; security;; ethnic claims;; Soviet administrative boundaries;; state sovereignty..

Religion was part of national identity but was not the main cause of the dispute. Why the Conflict Was So Difficult to Resolve For decades, each side believed that compromise could threaten fundamental national interests. Armenians feared loss of security and self-government for the population of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijanis viewed Armenian control as occupation of internationally recognized territory and a barrier to the return of displaced communities. As military capabilities changed, incentives for negotiation also changed. A Timeline of Major Events

What Changed Most Between 2021 and 2026? The difference is fundamental. In 2021, the central question was whether the 2020 ceasefire would hold. By 2023, Azerbaijan had reestablished control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the region’s ethnic Armenian population had largely left. By 2025–2026, diplomacy had shifted toward formal Armenia–Azerbaijan interstate peace. A current article therefore needs to explain this full sequence rather than treating the conflict as an ongoing version of the same 2021 standoff. What to Watch Next The most important indicators of durable peace include:

1. formal implementation of the peace agreement;
2. continued absence of major border violence;
3. progress on border delimitation;
4. transport and trade normalization;
5. treatment of detainees and missing-person cases;
6. arrangements concerning displaced people and property;
7. normal diplomatic relations;
8. domestic political acceptance in both countries.

Conclusion

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict evolved from a late-Soviet autonomy dispute into interstate war, decades of frozen confrontation, renewed war in 2020, repeated border clashes, and finally Azerbaijan’s full reestablishment of control over the region in 2023. The human cost has been severe on both sides. Multiple generations experienced death, displacement, missing relatives, destroyed communities, and unresolved grievances. The September 2023 exodus of more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians to Armenia created a new humanitarian reality, while Azerbaijani communities displaced during the earlier wars continued returning to territories regained by Azerbaijan. The most important development since the original 2021 version of this article is that the conflict has moved into a formal peace phase. Armenia and Azerbaijan initialed a draft peace agreement in Washington in August 2025, and by August 2026 both governments publicly reaffirmed the progress made since that summit. Whether this becomes a fully durable peace depends on implementation, border management, transport arrangements, humanitarian questions, political trust, and the ability of both societies to move beyond a conflict that shaped the South Caucasus for more than three decades.