A Conflict Forged in Mountain and Memory

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan stands as one of the most complex and enduring territorial disputes rooted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. At its essence, the conflict intertwines competing nationalisms, historical grievances, and strategic concerns, all profoundly influenced by the region’s rugged geography. This mountainous enclave, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan but long governed by ethnic Armenians, has been a persistent flashpoint for violence, displacement, and diplomatic stalemate. Over decades, the conflict has redrawn borders, devastated communities, and attracted the involvement of regional and global powers, leaving behind a legacy of trauma that continues to shape the political landscape of the South Caucasus.

The Geography of Nagorno-Karabakh: Mountains as Moat and Battleground

The very name “Nagorno-Karabakh” reflects the region’s defining physical characteristics: nagorny meaning “mountainous” in Russian, and karabakh meaning “black garden” in Turkic-Persian languages. Situated within the Lesser Caucasus mountain range, this highland area features steep peaks, deep ravines, and dense forests, with elevations ranging from 1,000 to 3,700 meters above sea level. Historically, these mountains served a dual role—as natural fortresses that provided refuge and defense for local Armenian populations, and as isolating barriers that complicated connectivity with neighboring regions.

Strategic High Ground and Military Implications

The control of key ridgelines, mountain passes, and elevated positions has been critical throughout the conflict’s history. During the initial war in the 1990s and subsequent clashes, Armenian forces leveraged the high ground to maintain defensive strongholds. The 2020 war, however, introduced a new dynamic: the widespread use of drones and precision-guided munitions by Azerbaijan somewhat mitigated the advantage traditionally afforded by the terrain. Nonetheless, geography still dictated supply routes, defensive lines, and tactical maneuvers. Strategic heights such as the Murovdag and Karabakh mountain ranges, as well as the hills surrounding Shusha—the cultural capital of Nagorno-Karabakh—became fiercely contested sites. The region’s narrow, winding roads are vulnerable to weather-related closures and ambushes, complicating logistics and troop movements. Tanks and armored units are often exposed to enemy fire in valley confines, while infantry units face arduous climbs and harsh weather conditions, which can rapidly shift the operational tempo.

This challenging topography has shaped the conflict into a series of battles over corridors and passes, with control over these choke points often determining broader territorial gains or losses. The Lachin Corridor, a slender mountain road linking Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, has remained especially crucial—serving as a lifeline for supplies and reinforcements but also as a vulnerability subject to blockade and disruption.

Water Resources and Economic Geography

Beyond military importance, the mountains give rise to several key rivers—the Tartar, Khachen, and Karkar—which provide essential water resources that support agriculture and hydroelectric power for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Control over these headwaters extends the conflict into environmental and economic realms, as water scarcity and management directly affect local livelihoods and energy production downstream.

The rugged terrain severely restricts arable land, concentrating populations in narrow valleys and foothills, thereby intensifying competition for fertile ground, pasture, and access routes. While the region’s mineral wealth is limited, deposits of gold and copper near the town of Kashen have attracted commercial interest, adding another layer to the resource contestation embedded in the conflict.

Ethnic Composition and the Roots of Tension

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, Nagorno-Karabakh—referred to as Artsakh by Armenians—was a mosaic of villages and towns predominantly inhabited by ethnic Armenians, who made up over 75% of the population by the late Soviet era. These communities were primarily settled in the mountainous interior, while the surrounding lowland districts were mainly populated by Azerbaijanis. This demographic patchwork was shaped by centuries of migration, imperial conquests, and Soviet nationality policies designed to manage ethnic diversity by intermixing populations and curbing nationalist movements.

Under Soviet rule, Nagorno-Karabakh was designated as an autonomous oblast within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. This administrative arrangement satisfied neither ethnic group: Armenians perceived it as an unjust subordination of their homeland, while Azerbaijanis viewed it as an unwarranted concession that fueled Armenian separatism. The Soviet system codified ethnic identity through internal passports, influencing housing, education, and employment, and creating parallel social spheres despite geographic proximity. This institutionalized separation fostered mistrust and competition, exacerbated by historical traumas such as the 1915 Armenian genocide and interethnic violence during 1918–1920.

Soviet Legacy and National Identity

The late 1980s brought a surge of ethnic mobilization catalyzed by the Soviet policy of Glasnost, which allowed greater political expression. In 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh Regional Council’s vote to request transfer from Azerbaijan to Armenia ignited mass unrest. This triggered pogroms against Armenians in Sumgait and against Azerbaijanis in Armenia, leading to large-scale displacement and the eventual eruption of full-scale war. The Soviet legacy of ethnic compartmentalization and suppressed grievances contributed to the explosive nature of these events.

The Conflict’s Trajectory: From War to Truce to War Again

The First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988–1994)

Following the collapse of Soviet authority, Armenian militias, supported by the newly independent Republic of Armenia, clashed with Azerbaijani forces over Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent territories. By 1993, Armenian forces had extended control beyond the enclave into seven surrounding Azerbaijani districts, effectively creating a buffer zone that accounted for roughly 20% of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory.

The conflict resulted in approximately 30,000 deaths and displaced over a million people, predominantly Azerbaijanis fleeing the occupied territories, but also Armenians from Azerbaijan proper. The 1994 Bishkek Protocol ceasefire halted active hostilities but left Nagorno-Karabakh as a de facto independent entity—unrecognized by the international community—and heavily reliant on Armenia economically and militarily. The Lachin Corridor remained the sole land connection, while the surrounding lowlands became a devastated and heavily mined no-man’s land.

The Stalled Peace Process and Escalation

Over the next decades, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France, and the United States, led efforts to broker peace. Proposals such as the 1997 "package deal" and the 2007 Madrid Principles sought a phased return of territories to Azerbaijan, interim status arrangements for Nagorno-Karabakh, and a future referendum on final status. However, entrenched positions and mutual distrust prevented acceptance of these compromises.

Meanwhile, both Armenia and Azerbaijan modernized their militaries using oil revenues and Russian arms supplies, resulting in increasingly lethal skirmishes along the line of contact. The brief but intense Four-Day War in April 2016 demonstrated Azerbaijan’s enhanced willingness and capability to use force to reclaim territory, setting the stage for the more extensive conflict that followed.

The 2020 War: The Battle of Shusha and Russian Intervention

On September 27, 2020, a large-scale war erupted, with Azerbaijan launching a coordinated offensive employing Israeli-made drones, Turkish Bayraktar UAVs, and advanced artillery systems. The campaign achieved rapid territorial gains, recapturing districts like Jabrayil, Fuzuli, and Hadrut, and culminating in the capture of Shusha in early November—a strategic mountain town overlooking the Nagorno-Karabakh capital, Stepanakert (known as Khankendi in Azerbaijani).

The fall of Shusha was pivotal, leading to a Russian-brokered ceasefire on November 9 that concluded hostilities within just 14 days. Under the terms, Armenia ceded control of all surrounding districts and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh itself to Azerbaijan. Russia deployed roughly 2,000 peacekeepers to secure the Lachin Corridor, ensuring a tenuous connection between Armenia and the remaining Armenian-populated parts of Nagorno-Karabakh. The war resulted in over 6,500 deaths and displaced thousands more, significantly altering the territorial and demographic realities on the ground.

The 2023 Azerbaijani Offensive and the End of the Republic

Despite the presence of Russian peacekeepers, tensions simmered. Azerbaijan imposed a blockade on the Lachin Corridor starting in December 2022, resulting in severe shortages of food, medicine, and fuel within Nagorno-Karabakh. On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a swift 24-hour military operation that overwhelmed the enclave’s remaining Armenian defenses. The de facto government surrendered the following day.

This rapid offensive precipitated a massive exodus of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians who fled to Armenia, effectively emptying Nagorno-Karabakh of its Armenian population for the first time in centuries. On January 1, 2024, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was officially dissolved. Azerbaijan restored full sovereignty over the territory and raised its national flag in Stepanakert (renamed Khankendi) for the first time in three decades, marking a profound shift in the region’s geopolitical landscape.

Impact of Terrain and Ethnic Tensions on Conflict Dynamics

Terrain as a Force Multiplier and Vulnerabilities

The mountainous terrain has been both a defensive asset and a logistical challenge throughout the conflict. In the 1990s, Armenian forces capitalized on fortified mountain positions—such as bunkers and tunnel networks—that were difficult to assault directly. These static defenses forced Azerbaijani forces to rely heavily on artillery barrages and infantry assaults, often at high human cost.

The 2020 conflict underscored new vulnerabilities, as Azerbaijan’s deployment of drones enabled precision strikes on artillery batteries, command centers, and supply convoys well behind front lines. However, mountainous cover and adverse weather sometimes limited drone effectiveness, preserving some defensive advantages. The Lachin Corridor exemplifies how geography can be both a lifeline and a strategic vulnerability—its blockade in 2022–2023 demonstrated that even international peacekeepers could not prevent a determined state from leveraging terrain to enforce isolation and pressure populations politically.

Ethnic Nationalism and the Zero-Sum Mindset

Ethnic identities have been actively politicized by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, transforming the Nagorno-Karabakh issue into a core element of national identity and state legitimacy. In Armenia, the cause of Artsakh has been central to nationalist narratives and political discourse, with leaders using it to rally popular support and justify military and diplomatic efforts. Conversely, Azerbaijan frames the conflict as a matter of territorial integrity and national restoration, turning the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding districts into a national trauma that justifies sustained military investment.

This zero-sum framing leaves little room for compromise: any territorial concession is often portrayed domestically as betrayal or existential defeat. The forced displacement of populations—Azerbaijanis in the 1990s and Armenians in 2023—has created irreversible demographic changes, embedding a sense of permanent loss and grievance on both sides. These population shifts further complicate reconciliation and peacebuilding efforts by changing the ethnic composition on the ground.

International Responses and the Shifting Balance

The interplay of geography and ethnicity has drawn external actors with competing interests into the conflict. Russia has historically been the dominant regional power, supplying arms to both sides and positioning itself as a peacebroker. However, Russia’s military focus on Ukraine since 2022 diminished its capacity to enforce influence in Nagorno-Karabakh, creating a geopolitical opening for Turkey and Israel.

Turkey’s close ethnic and linguistic ties with Azerbaijan underpin its robust military and political support, framed in Ankara’s rhetoric as “one nation, two states.” Israeli arms sales, particularly drones and precision weaponry, have transformed Azerbaijan’s battlefield capabilities. Iran, home to a significant Azeri minority, has pursued a cautious balancing act—concerned about Azerbaijani nationalism potentially fueling separatism within its borders, while also wary of Armenian irredentist claims.

Western actors including the European Union and the United States have primarily engaged through diplomatic mediation and humanitarian assistance. However, without direct military involvement, their leverage remains limited amid the entrenched positions and complex regional dynamics.

Current Realities and the Road Ahead

As of early 2025, Azerbaijan exercises full control over Nagorno-Karabakh, actively rebuilding infrastructure, restoring governance, and encouraging the return of displaced Azerbaijani populations. The security environment remains highly militarized, with ongoing tensions along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border.

The Russian peacekeeping mission, initially agreed to last five years, faces uncertainty due to broader geopolitical pressures on Moscow. Meanwhile, Armenia, under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has expressed willingness to formalize recognition of Azerbaijani sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh in exchange for security guarantees and a comprehensive peace treaty. Yet, deep mistrust persists, and border delimitation talks remain incomplete.

One of the most contentious issues is the proposed Zangezur Corridor—an Azerbaijani transport route linking mainland Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave via southern Armenia. Armenia fears this corridor would effectively grant Azerbaijan extraterritorial rights within its borders, raising sovereignty concerns and complicating regional integration efforts.

The human cost of the conflict continues to unfold. The mass displacement of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh has created acute humanitarian challenges, including housing, healthcare, and employment needs in Armenia. Refugees face psychological trauma from loss of homeland and uncertainty about the future. International organizations have mobilized aid, but long-term integration and reconciliation remain elusive.

Legally, questions around property rights, citizenship status, and reparations remain unresolved. Azerbaijan has committed to allowing the return of displaced persons under international supervision, but security guarantees and practical implementation mechanisms are yet to be fully established. Moreover, the destruction of cultural heritage sites during the conflict raises concerns about preservation and reconciliation between the communities.

Ultimately, the interplay of mountainous terrain, ethnic nationalism, and geopolitical rivalry has produced a conflict deeply resistant to resolution. Any lasting peace will require addressing not only territorial disputes but also the human, cultural, and psychological dimensions that have entrenched divisions over generations.