2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War: A Repetition of  Tragedy 26 Years Ago

Hans Morgenthau, one of the major figures in Classical Realism, defines power as “man’s control over the minds and actions of other men” in his book, “Politics Among Nations.” His theory, which began with an in-depth analysis of human nature, argues that international politics is a collection of the selfish, greedy nature of humans, and thereby, the struggle for power between nations is universal in time and space and an undeniable fact of experience. Although several weaknesses of Classical Realism have been exposed over time, Morgenthau’s achievements are still relevant in that it penetrated the chaotic nature of international politics and questioned the conventional wisdom—man is good by nature.

On sept. 27, the two arch-rival nations in the South Caucasus region, Azerbaijan and Armenia, resumed their war after 26 years of ceasefire, with the heaviest clashes in years. Although one of the world’s oldest conflicts ended with Azerbaijan’s de facto triumph, the dispute between the two countries seems to be unresolved. In the world at war with COVID-19, the territorial conflict between the two may be dismissed as one of countless wars in human history, but this case is stemmed from a complex and multifaceted problem. In response, The Argus met with Oh Jong-jin, a professor of Department of Turkish and Azerbaijani at HUFS, and discussed the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war in depth.

The background: What triggered the war?

The Caucasus region, where Azerbaijan and Armenia are located, are connected to the Black Sea to the west, and the Caspian Sea and the Central Asia to the east. To the north lay Russia’s vast plains, and to the south, there are Turkey and Iran. Since the ancient times, the region was a crossroads of trade and a key gateway for sending troops into neighboring empires. For this, many empires throughout history aimed to take control of this region. Thanks to the rugged terrain of the Caucasus Mountains, a kaleidoscope of languages and ethnicities flourished in the Caucasus region, with various people also settling and blossoming their civilizations due to the crossroads nature of the region.

In particular, the South Caucasus, located south of the Caucasus Mountains, has a relatively high geographic continuity and population. The region held many long-lived nations as opposed to the North Caucasus, which consisted of tribes. Due to this difference, the three ethnicities of the South Caucasus, the Georgians, Armenians, and the Azerbaijanis, were able to receive statuses as independent republics during the region’s Soviet rule. Shortly after the fall of the USSR, the three republics were able to find their place as new nations. Among them was Armenia and Azerbaijan.  Armenia, even while surrounded by Muslim countries, is proud to the first nation in the world to have adopted Christianity as its religion in 301 CE. Azerbaijan originates from the nomads that crossed over from Central Asia, who also founded the great Safavid Empire, or current-day Iran.

This region faced a wave of change in the 19th century, as a westernized Russia sought southward expansion and established militaristic dominance over the Ottomans and Qajar Iranians. The Russians succeeded in incorporating the Caucasus region into their empire. Under Russian rule, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan vigilantly awaited the chance to become independent when opportunity struck. As the First World War raged on, Russia’s monarchy fell to revolution in the February of 1917. On October of the same year, Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution threw Russia into domestic disorder. Taking this chance, in April 1918, the three nations of South Caucasus established an alliance and founded the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR).

However, the three ethnicities making up the newfound nation were different on too many grounds, and in just one month after its establishment, TDFR broke up into three: The Democratic Republic of Georgia, the Democratic Republic of Armenia, and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Meanwhile, in Russia, the Bolshevik Red Army seized victory over the anti-communist White Army and recaptured the Caucasus. In December 1922, the short-lived independency of the three Caucasus nations ended as they were incorporated into the Soviet Union. The Soviets seemed to have had success in unifying the many ethnicities under their rule, and as a part of the Soviets, the Azerbaijani and Armenians also seemed to coexist in relative peace.

However, in the February of 1988, as the discrepancies and inefficiencies of communism came to surface weakening the Government of the Soviet Union’s authority, Karabakh Armenians of the Azerbaijani-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh region sent a petition requesting the central government to revert control of the autonomous oblast to Armenia. This was because although nearly 70 percent of the area’s population was Armenian, it had been incorporated into Azerbaijan, and Karabakh Armenians worried this inclusion would remain forever, even after the Soviet Union collapsed. This incident brought up old rivalries between the two ethnicities, and when the USSR fell on Dec. 25, 1991, Armenia and Azerbaijan gained independence and engaged themselves in full-on war.

After Russian troops pulled out of Azerbaijan in 1992, Armenia invaded for the reconquest of Nagorno-Karabakh and succeeded in occupying Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding Azerbaijani territories. With the help of Russian and French mediation, the two nations signed a ceasefire treaty in 1994, but intermittent skirmishes persisted between Armenian and Azeri forces. Azerbaijan, who had international recognition of their right to the territory, continued to request actual control over the region. Besides this, Karabakh Armenians established the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on Dec. 10, 1991, as an unrecognized state, and currently also goes by the official name, Republic of Artsakh, which was chosen through a referendum held in 2017.

 The Interview: Professor Oh Jong-jin at HUFS

So far, we have looked into the brief background of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. To seek a professional analysis of the war, The Argus visited professor Oh Jong-jin, a professor of the Department of Turkish and Azerbaijani at HUFS. Professor Oh graduated from the Department of Turkish at HUFS, and earned a doctorate in international relations from the Bilkent University in Ankara. The following excerpts from the conversation have been condensed and edited.

The Argus: Can you please explain the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a war that has resumed after 26 years of ceasefire?

Oh Jong-jin (Oh): The First Nagorno-Karabakh War started in the winter of 1992, just a year after the fall of the Soviet Union, and lasted three years into 1994. At that time, all former Soviet republics, including Azerbaijan and Armenia, were in the process of newly forming their governments, so it was chaotic. Armenia, however, had been claiming the territorial rights to the Nagorno-Karabakh region since 1988, and when the Russians withdrew their troops from Azerbaijan in 1992, it was all-out war between the two budding nations. Azerbaijan did not have the forces to properly respond to the attacks and ended up losing Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions to Armenia; a ceasefire treaty was signed, and the conflict was concluded.

However, the underlying problem was that Nagorno-Karabakh was recognized, by international law, as Azerbaijan’s territory. Legally, the region was Azerbaijan, but Armenia held de facto rule over the territory, creating a queer situation. Due to this, there arose intermittent clashes between the two nations. This past September, the clashes developed into a war. The two sides have radically differing opinions on who exactly started the war. Each, with their own reasons, are pointing their fingers at the other side. In any case, this is a war between militants in the Nagorno-Karabakh region who are backed by Armenia and Azerbaijan’s regular army.

The Argus: How exactly does the stance of Armenia and Azerbaijan differ?

Oh: As I have mentioned, each side has a different stance on how the war started. Among the Caucasus countries, Azerbaijan and Georgia, with their gas and oil development, became pro-Western. Russia, to keep things in check, placed Russian troops in Armenia. They were trying to balance the power, so to speak. Azerbaijan emphasizes this point. That is, if Azerbaijan had started the war, the Russian troops stationed in their nation would not have just let it happen. On the contrary, Armenia claims that they have no reason to war, amid their pre-existing economic difficulties plus the corona crisis.

Secondly, the nations differ on defining the nature of the war. For Azerbaijan, this is a civil war; its regular army are at war with rebels within their territory. On the other hand, Armenia deems this a war between civilizations and religion; there was, in fact, some effort to expand it to an international war. For example, there were talks about Islamic forces from the Middle East joining in, or the intervention of Turkish troops. However, under scrutiny, this claims are almost groundless, and it is most reasonable to consider this war as one between two ethnicities.

The Argus: Professor, as you have mentioned, there were talks about “Islamic forces participating,” and the “intervention of Turkey” Why are you skeptical about these claims?

Oh: First and foremost, the militaristic outlooks were significantly favorable to Azerbaijan. When they became independent, they boasted a population of eight million and have now grown to over 10 million. On the flipside, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh had economic difficulties which led to population decrease; the current population of Nagorno-Karabakh is estimated to be around 80 thousand. In battles between the Nagorno-Karabakh militants and the Azerbaijan army, the latter is dominant. Notably, Azerbaijan has experienced fast economic development through natural gases from the Caspian Sea, marking a 36 percent development rate in 2002. By this growth, they were able to modernize their army, so there is definite difference of militaristic strength between the two nations.

In addition, Azerbaijan is a secular nation; they also observed how Islamic militants left Syria and Iraq in ruins. Azerbaijan, with their militaristic edge and the desire to end this war in the domestic stage, would not want to take the risk of expanding this war. During this war, many civilian localities within Azerbaijan, including its second-largest city, Ganja, were bombed, but Azerbaijan did touch Armenian territory at all, and even with the reclamation of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijanis (Azeris) took 30 percent of the region, which corresponds to the proportion of ethnic Azeris in the area. Moreover, a long-term war was more favorable for the richer Azerbaijan with the spread of COVID-19 and approaching winter. Azerbaijan had no urgent reason to end the war.

Turkey is a secular country like Azerbaijan and both nations were established by the Turks, leading them to carry the slogan, “One people, two countries.” There was a political narrative within Turkey that they would participate in any Azerbaijani crises. However, they did not this time. If Turkey intervenes, Russia must as well, but the situation was not so bad to the point that Turkey had to participate, and Azerbaijan did not want this war to become international. The message is that, if Russia participates in the war, Turkey will help Azerbaijan as a brother country. Personally, I suspect these speculations have arisen from the opinions of the many Armenian diasporas in America and France being reported in the Western news.

The Argus: The location of the conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh; does it hold any geo-political significance?

Oh: The Nagorno-Karabakh region consists of mountainous highlands. As war is now fought in a modern way, the strategic militaristic advantage such geography holds has now decreased, but still holds significant militaristic value. First, we must understand the Caucasus Mountains. The mountain range starts from the Black Sea and stretches on until the Caspian Sea, marking the border between Europe and Asia. The Caucasus can be divided into the Greater Caucasus and the Lesser Caucasus. The Greater Caucasus divides North Caucasus and South Caucasus, and the rough mountain range were a natural border that separated the various ethnicities and cultures.

In the Lesser Caucasus lies Armenia, and most of the country is high in altitude, but the west is a bit lower than the east. On the contrary, Azerbaijan’s western regions are higher in altitude, and the east borders the Caspian Sea. If Azerbaijan were to actually control the Nagorno-Karabakh region, Armenia’s entire territory becomes vulnerable to Azerbaijani forces; attacking from higher ground is much more advantageous. That is, for Armenia, the threat to national security grows. In this manner, Nagorno-Karabakh holds strategic advantages to the owner, which is why Azerbaijan and Armenia are competing to secure this area as theirs.

The Argus: During this war, various countries from Turkey to France and Russia expressed their stances. In particular, it was Russian mediation that helped settle this conflict. What is Russia’s stance on the 2020 Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict?

Oh: It can be said that Russia has once again proved its influence over the Caucasus. Azerbaijan and Armenia were both former Soviet Republics. Russian influence and remnants remain strong in former Soviet countries like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as well. It is because, in the process of becoming Soviet, the Russian language and culture were introduced. However, Azerbaijan had actually maintained its unique traditions and culture during the Soviet era, but this was because the USSR believe Azerbaijan had practical value in this way; through Azerbaijan, the USSR wanted to flip Iran over to communism.

Azerbaijan’s population is at around 10 million right now. Iran’s population sits at around 85 million, but about a quarter is Azeri. More Azeris live in Iran than they do in Azerbaijan. The Soviets focused on this point. Through Azerbaijan’s prosperity and advancement, the Soviets wanted to take a “united front” approach. In other words, Azerbaijan was, for the USSR, an extremely useful bridgehead into Iran. For this reason, they let Azerbaijan’s identity flourish, which leads to the present. At the same time, this region was a buffer zone between powers like Turkey, Iran, and Russia.

There is also a buffer zone to the north. Belarus and Ukraine are such regions. However, both nations had struggles with Russia due to their pro-Western actions. Russia and Ukraine clashed violently over the Crimean Peninsula. Russia did not want to make more problems amid troubles they already had. They wanted this war to be solved between Armenia and Azerbaijan, so they tentatively stayed silent over this matter. However, in the end, the peace treaty was signed through Russia, and Russian peacekeeping troops were deployed. In this way, Russia showed their influence over the Caucasus region that no other country can parallel.

The Argus: What about the stances of other nations? What did Georgia, one of the three Caucasus nations, have to say about this conflict, and why?

Oh: Iran’s stance can be concluded as “waiting and seeing.” The stance roots from Iran’s situational quandary. As mentioned before, a significant number of Iran’s population is Azeri, and they hold significant positions in the Iranian elite. A prosperous Azerbaijan is a load to bear for Iran, but that does not mean Iran can support the Armenians. Armenia is a Christian nation, meaning Iran, as an Islamic nation, cannot become close, even with good intentions. Additionally, Iran is labeled as being in the “axis of evil.” For all these reasons, Iran could only observe the conflict from afar.

Georgia also did not want to participate in this conflict and hoped that it be resolved quickly as Azerbaijan’s domestic problem. First, Georgia holds a part of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipelines that carry natural gases from the Central Asian region to the Western world, without going through Russia. They receive passage money from Azerbaijan, which makes them economically dependent on Azerbaijan to some extent. Moreover, the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, which was fought over Southern Ossetia, where Georgia surrendered in five days, left the Georgians with fear of the Russians. In conclusion, Georgia wanted the war not to become international and instead be resolved as quickly and as quietly as possible.

The Argus: Can you please explain the stance of Turkey, who first mentioned “Turkish intervention” and also France, who backed Armenia?

Oh: Turkey’s message, as mentioned before, was that, should the war escalate, they would give military aid to Azerbaijan. However, this means conflict between Russia and Turkey. In fact, though, these countries will never collide. There are a few reasons why. In 2015, there was an incident where Turkey shot down a Russian fighter. The next year, in 2016, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrew Karlov, was assassinated in Ankara by a nationalist. Did the two countries go into war or hold each other responsible? No, the relationship between the two nations were unexpectedly unchanged.

Rather, in 2018, Putin received an invitation from Erdogan and visited Ankara, where they discussed economic cooperation. Also, the two nations are cooperating to some extent through the Blue Stream, a trans-Black Sea gas pipeline that connects the two countries. Russia secures a supply route of their natural resources to the Western world, and Turkey imports natural gases from Russia, creating a win-win situation. Turkey, who has succeeded in growing their defenses, is no easy counterpart for Russia, either. The relationship of these two nations are complex and difficult to explain in short, and they are trying to maintain the balance of power.

As for France, who backed Armenia, the statement, “an enemy of my enemy is a friend,” explains their stance. France and Turkey have various scuffles from natural gas development clashes in the Eastern Mediterranean, to Syria and Libya’s civil wars. Moreover, it cannot maintain good relations with Azerbaijan because the Azeris have Turkish roots. With “Turkey” as a common enemy, France and Armenia intersect. By this logic, France is supportive of Armenia. Like the term, “you see what you know,” the more you know about the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, the more you realize how intertwined the interests of countless entities are.

The Argus: We took a look at the Nagorno-Karabakh war up until now. In summary, what do you think will happen going forward?

Oh: The fact is that the Caucasus region is complex, with a deep history and numerous ethnicities. Therefore, it is not easy to predict anything about this region. First, Russia has mediated a peace treaty. Azerbaijan will gain control over the territory it reclaimed during this war. The Azerbaijani government will most likely guarantee ethnic Armenians living in the Nagorno-Karabakh a place in their nation, as well as aim to offer them incorporation into Azerbaijan as citizens. The Armenians of the Nagorno-Karabakh region will have to choose between becoming a part of Azerbaijan and coexist or becoming isolated in a ceasefire situation.
As for Armenia, it is likely that the government will change through a new election. Even now, there are protests within the country by people who oppose the peace treaty. However, the positions of Karabakh Armenians and Armenia do not completely align. Some are favorable to incorporation, while others wish to maintain the de facto, unrecognized Republic of Artsakh and completely become independent of Armenia and Azerbaijan. We will have to wait and see what results.

The spectrum of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was quite similar to that of 26 years ago, but the result was drastically different. The winner and the loser were changed, and Azerbaijan was able to recover some of its territory which had been taken away. However, is there a “real winner” in this war? As usual, the biggest victims were innocent civilians, and the conflict between the two nations, which was deeply affected by the rise and fall of the great powers, still seems to have not have been resolved. Then, how can such a dilemmatic dispute be settled? 

Morgenthau emphasized the attitude of considering a situation from the perspective of the other party, which enables compromise, and warned of the danger of the crusading spirit, which looks on the struggle for power as the pursuit of goodness. He also stressed that diplomacy is the best means of preserving peace in the anarchic international society. To solve the fundamental problem between the two countries, the two need to refer to the advice of Morgenthau. Though unimaginable now, war is not new in Korea either, which suffered a war just 70 years ago. The Argus hopes that readers have this historical background in mind and be interested in the various conflicts taking place around the world. 

nak3096@hufs.ac.kr