Artsakh Crisis: Exodus and Ethnic Cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh
A Region Emptied
In late September 2023, the world witnessed the near-complete depopulation of Nagorno-Karabakh, known to Armenians as Artsakh, as virtually its entire ethnic Armenian population fled to Armenia within days of Azerbaijan’s military offensive. This mass departure of over 100,000 people—representing more than 95 percent of the region’s Armenian inhabitants—unfolded with stunning rapidity, transforming a decades-long frozen conflict into an acute humanitarian emergency that shocked international observers and left the Armenian nation reeling.
The images emerging from the crisis told a story of desperation and finality: endless convoys of vehicles packed with families and possessions snaking along the single mountain road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia; fuel depot explosions killing dozens of fleeing refugees; and satellite imagery capturing the exodus in real-time as entire cities emptied within hours. What had been an Armenian-majority enclave for centuries, a region where ancient monasteries dotted mountainous landscapes and Armenian had been spoken for millennia, became virtually devoid of its indigenous population in less than a week.
This crisis represents far more than a refugee emergency or the conclusion of a territorial dispute. It embodies fundamental questions about sovereignty, self-determination, ethnic identity, and the international community’s capacity—or willingness—to prevent mass displacement of civilian populations. The exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh carries echoes of historical traumas etched deep in Armenian collective memory while simultaneously raising urgent contemporary questions about ethnic cleansing, minority rights, and the protection of civilian populations in conflict zones.
Historical Background: Decades of Conflict
To understand the 2023 crisis requires examining decades of ethnic tension, territorial disputes, and violence that have characterized Nagorno-Karabakh’s modern history. The region, located within internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory but populated predominantly by ethnic Armenians, has been contested ground between Armenian and Azerbaijani populations for over a century, with the dispute intensifying during the twilight years of the Soviet Union.
In 1921, Soviet authorities incorporated the Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh region into the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, a decision that planted seeds for future conflict. During seven decades of Soviet rule, tensions simmered beneath the surface, contained by Moscow’s authority but never truly resolved. The demographic reality remained unchanged—Armenians comprised approximately 75 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh’s population, maintaining distinct cultural, linguistic, and religious identity from the surrounding Azerbaijani territories.
As Soviet power weakened in the late 1980s, long-suppressed ethnic tensions exploded into violence. Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population demanded transfer to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, triggering pogroms against Armenians in Azerbaijani cities and retaliatory violence against Azerbaijanis in Armenia. The situation escalated into full-scale war following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, when Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence with support from Armenia.
The first Nagorno-Karabakh War, lasting from 1988 to 1994, proved devastating for both sides. Armenian forces gained control not only of Nagorno-Karabakh itself but also of substantial surrounding territories, creating a land corridor connecting the region to Armenia. The conflict killed approximately 30,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands—primarily Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding occupied territories, but also Armenians from Azerbaijan proper. The 1994 ceasefire left Nagorno-Karabakh de facto independent but internationally unrecognized, sustained by Armenia’s military, economic, and political support.
For nearly three decades, this frozen conflict persisted. Nagorno-Karabakh functioned as a self-proclaimed republic with its own government, military, and institutions, though no United Nations member state recognized its independence. The region remained economically isolated, dependent on Armenia for virtually all external connections, while Azerbaijan viewed the situation as illegal occupation of its sovereign territory. Periodic flare-ups of violence punctuated the ceasefire, but the fundamental territorial arrangement remained unchanged until 2020.
full list of the Azerbaijan warcrimes:
https://ragex.co/war/war-crimes/azerbaijan-war-crimes-alert/
The 2020 War: Shifting the Balance
The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in autumn 2020 fundamentally altered the conflict’s trajectory, demonstrating Azerbaijan’s growing military superiority and international diplomatic support. The 44-day war, beginning in September 2020, showcased how modern military technology—particularly Turkish and Israeli drones—could overcome entrenched defensive positions that Armenian forces had fortified for decades.
Azerbaijan’s military campaign combined drone strikes, artillery bombardment, and ground offensives that systematically dismantled Armenian defensive positions. Turkish-supplied Bayraktar TB2 drones and Israeli-made loitering munitions proved devastatingly effective against Armenian armor, artillery, and air defense systems. The technological and numerical superiority Azerbaijan wielded overwhelmed Armenian forces, which lacked adequate air defense capabilities and struggled to counter the drone-centric warfare strategy.
The conflict killed thousands of soldiers and hundreds of civilians on both sides before a Russian-brokered ceasefire in November 2020. The agreement forced Armenia to cede substantial territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that Armenian forces had controlled since the 1990s. More critically for the region’s long-term fate, Azerbaijan regained direct control over significant portions of Nagorno-Karabakh itself, including the strategically important city of Shushi, reducing the Armenian-controlled area to a fraction of its previous extent.
The 2020 ceasefire established a fragile new status quo. Russian peacekeeping forces deployed along the remaining Armenian-controlled territories, while a narrow mountain corridor—the Lachin Corridor—became the sole road connection linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. This geographic reality made the remaining Armenian population extraordinarily vulnerable, dependent entirely on a single mountain pass for access to the outside world. Azerbaijan had effectively created conditions where the Armenian population could be isolated at will, setting the stage for the crisis that would unfold three years later.
The Blockade: Strangling Artsakh
Beginning in December 2022, Azerbaijan initiated what Armenian authorities characterized as a humanitarian blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijani activists, ostensibly protesting illegal mining operations, established a checkpoint on the Lachin Corridor that prevented free movement of people and goods between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. While Azerbaijan claimed these were spontaneous civilian protests, Armenian officials and international observers noted the presence of Azerbaijani security forces and the systematic nature of the restrictions.
The blockade’s humanitarian impact proved severe and immediate. Nagorno-Karabakh, dependent on the Lachin Corridor for food, medicine, fuel, and virtually all supplies, faced acute shortages as the blockade persisted through winter and into 2023. Hospitals ran low on essential medications and medical supplies. Food prices skyrocketed as stocks dwindled. Fuel shortages halted public transportation and restricted private vehicle use. Electricity became unreliable as fuel for generators grew scarce.
International humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, repeatedly warned about the deteriorating conditions. By summer 2023, the situation had become desperate. The region’s 120,000 Armenian inhabitants faced critical shortages of basic necessities. Bread rationing was implemented. Hospitals reported medicine stocks approaching depletion. Fuel scarcity meant ambulances could barely operate, while agricultural equipment sat idle during crucial planting and harvest seasons.
The blockade served clear strategic purposes beyond immediate humanitarian pressure. It demonstrated to Nagorno-Karabakh’s population their complete vulnerability and dependence on Azerbaijani goodwill for survival. It weakened the region economically and psychologically, eroding residents’ will to remain under such precarious conditions. It pressured Armenian leadership both in Yerevan and Stepanakert to accept Azerbaijani terms for resolving the conflict. Most critically, it created conditions where military action would face a weakened, demoralized population with limited capacity for sustained resistance.
The September 2023 Offensive: Swift and Decisive
On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military operation it termed an “anti-terrorist” action against what it characterized as Armenian military formations in its territory. The offensive combined artillery strikes, drone attacks, and ground advances that rapidly overwhelmed the remaining Armenian defensive positions. The speed and intensity of the assault shocked observers who had grown accustomed to the frozen conflict’s relative stability despite periodic tensions.
The military operation unfolded with devastating efficiency. Azerbaijani forces employed the same combined-arms approach that proved successful in 2020, with drones providing reconnaissance and strike capabilities while artillery suppressed defensive positions. Armenian forces, weakened by months of blockade and lacking adequate air defense or anti-drone capabilities, could mount only limited resistance. The Russian peacekeeping forces, theoretically present to prevent exactly such escalation, remained in their positions without intervening to halt the Azerbaijani advance.
Within 24 hours, it became clear that sustained military resistance was impossible. The leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh, facing military defeat and the prospect of thousands of civilian casualties if fighting continued, agreed to ceasefire terms. The agreement, announced on September 20, effectively ended Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto independence. Azerbaijan demanded the dissolution of separatist governmental structures, disarmament of Armenian military forces, and acceptance of Azerbaijani sovereignty over the territory.
The human cost of even this brief conflict proved substantial. Official casualty figures reported over 200 military personnel killed on both sides, though the actual toll may have been higher. Dozens of civilians died in the fighting, with hundreds more wounded. Infrastructure damage compounded the humanitarian crisis already created by months of blockade. But the most consequential impact was psychological—the swift military defeat shattered any remaining belief that the Armenian population could maintain their presence in Nagorno-Karabakh against Azerbaijani determination to reassert control.
The Mass Exodus: A Population Flees
In the days immediately following the ceasefire, Nagorno-Karabakh witnessed scenes of mass panic as virtually the entire Armenian population made the agonizing decision to flee rather than remain under Azerbaijani rule. The exodus began as a trickle on September 24 when the Lachin Corridor reopened for civilian movement, but quickly swelled into a torrent as tens of thousands of people abandoned homes, possessions, and ancestral lands to seek safety in Armenia.
The single mountain road became choked with vehicles of every description—personal cars packed with families and whatever belongings they could carry, buses filled beyond capacity, trucks loaded with furniture and household goods. Those without vehicles walked, carrying children and elderly family members along the winding mountain highway. The convoy stretched for miles, moving at a crawl as desperate refugees fled the only home many had ever known.
Satellite imagery captured the exodus in stark clarity, showing the massive traffic jam on the Lachin Corridor and the progressive emptying of Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh’s largest city. Maxar Technologies released images documenting the crisis, providing visual evidence of one of Europe’s most dramatic population displacements in recent decades. The images showed a region literally emptying in real-time, an entire population choosing exile over the uncertainty of remaining under the control of a government they feared and distrusted.
The human stories emerging from the exodus proved heartbreaking. Families forced to abandon ancestral homes where generations had lived. Elderly residents leaving behind graves of family members they might never visit again. Parents explaining to confused children why they could never return to their schools, their friends, their bedrooms filled with toys left behind. The refugees carried with them not merely personal belongings but the weight of historical trauma, collective memory, and profound loss.
By early October, more than 100,000 people—over 95 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population—had crossed into Armenia. The remaining few thousand consisted primarily of elderly individuals too infirm to travel, a handful of people who chose to remain despite the risks, and those forcibly detained by Azerbaijani authorities. Within a week, a region that had maintained Armenian demographic majority for centuries became virtually devoid of its indigenous population, transformed into an empty landscape of abandoned homes, shuttered businesses, and deserted streets.
The Fuel Depot Catastrophe: Tragedy Upon Tragedy
As if the exodus itself were not sufficiently traumatic, a devastating explosion at a fuel depot near the village of Khartsk on September 25 compounded the humanitarian catastrophe. The blast occurred as hundreds of refugees waited to refuel vehicles before attempting the journey to Armenia, creating a scene of horror that shocked even observers numbed by days of crisis imagery.
The explosion killed at least 68 people, including children, with more than 290 others suffering severe burns and injuries. Over 100 individuals remained missing in the aftermath, their fates uncertain as rescue operations struggled with limited resources and overwhelming needs. Witnesses described a massive fireball engulfing the fuel depot and surrounding area, with burning fuel spreading rapidly and engulfing vehicles and people unable to escape the inferno.
The wounded faced additional challenges as medical facilities in both Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia struggled to handle the influx of burn victims requiring specialized treatment. Many suffered injuries covering substantial portions of their bodies, requiring intensive care, skin grafts, and long-term rehabilitation. Armenian hospitals, already strained by the refugee crisis, mobilized emergency resources while international medical organizations dispatched burn specialists and supplies to assist with treatment.
The fuel depot explosion became symbolic of the exodus’s tragic nature—people fleeing for safety died while attempting escape, killed by the very fuel shortage that the blockade had created. The incident underscored the humanitarian disaster’s scope and the desperate conditions driving the population’s flight. It also raised questions about whether adequate safety measures had been implemented at the fuel depot and whether the rushed, chaotic nature of the exodus had contributed to the tragedy.
Armenia’s Humanitarian Challenge: Absorbing the Displaced
Armenia, a nation of approximately 2.9 million people already facing economic challenges, suddenly confronted the task of absorbing over 100,000 refugees—equivalent to more than 3 percent of its entire population arriving within days. The scale and rapidity of the influx overwhelmed even well-prepared governmental and humanitarian response systems, creating an acute crisis that required immediate international assistance.
The Armenian government had prepared to receive approximately 40,000 refugees, establishing reception centers, coordinating with humanitarian organizations, and stockpiling emergency supplies. This preparation proved woefully inadequate when the actual exodus exceeded 100,000 people. By early October, only a fraction of refugees had been provided with organized shelter, with the majority relying on hospitality from relatives, friends, or strangers willing to open their homes to displaced families.
Yerevan and other Armenian cities saw their populations swell as refugees sought accommodation. Hotels filled beyond capacity. Schools and community centers converted into temporary shelters. Private citizens opened their homes, providing rooms, food, and emotional support to traumatized families who had lost everything. The outpouring of solidarity demonstrated the deep connection Armenians felt toward the displaced population, but private charity could not substitute for the systematic humanitarian response the crisis demanded.
The displaced population faced multiple challenges beyond immediate shelter needs. Many arrived with only the possessions they could carry, lacking adequate clothing, personal items, and financial resources. Children required school enrollment and psychological support to process traumatic experiences. Adults needed employment opportunities to support their families, but Armenia’s economy struggled to absorb such a large labor force influx. Medical needs ranged from routine care to treatment for chronic conditions requiring ongoing medication to mental health services addressing trauma and loss.
The long-term integration challenge loomed large. Unlike typical refugee situations where displaced populations harbor hope of eventual return, the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh understood they were unlikely to ever return home. This realization required fundamentally different approaches—not temporary humanitarian assistance but permanent integration into Armenian society. Housing, employment, education, healthcare, and social services all required dramatic expansion to accommodate the permanent population increase.
Ethnic Cleansing: Legal and Moral Dimensions
The term “ethnic cleansing” carries profound legal and moral weight, evoking memories of some of history’s darkest chapters. While not a formal crime under international law, ethnic cleansing is widely understood to encompass acts aimed at removing a particular ethnic group from a territory through displacement, intimidation, or violence. The events in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 raised serious questions about whether Azerbaijan’s actions constituted ethnic cleansing under this definition.
Several factors support characterization of the crisis as ethnic cleansing rather than merely a refugee exodus resulting from military conflict. The months-long blockade created humanitarian conditions specifically designed to pressure the Armenian population to leave. The swift military operation that faced virtually no military necessity given the blockade’s success suggested intent beyond defeating armed resistance. Azerbaijan’s subsequent actions—including detention of Nagorno-Karabakh’s leadership, erasure of Armenian place names, and statements suggesting the region would be repopulated—indicated systematic efforts to eliminate Armenian presence.
The near-total nature of the population displacement strengthened ethnic cleansing claims. Over 95 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population fled within days, a percentage far exceeding typical refugee flows even from intense conflicts. This unanimity suggested not merely fear of war but deeper concerns about the consequences of remaining under Azerbaijani control. The population’s decision to abandon ancestral lands rather than remain under the new authorities spoke to fundamental fears about their safety, identity, and future under Azerbaijani rule.
International legal scholars and human rights organizations debated whether sufficient evidence existed to characterize events as ethnic cleansing under international law. Organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented the humanitarian crisis, though they employed careful language about legal characterizations. The International Court of Justice had previously ordered Azerbaijan to ensure free movement through the Lachin Corridor and prevent incitement of racial hatred, orders that Azerbaijan’s actions arguably violated.
The Armenian government and diaspora communities unequivocally characterized events as ethnic cleansing, demanding international accountability and intervention. They pointed to historical precedents—including the Armenian Genocide of 1915—as context for understanding why the Armenian population fled rather than trusting assurances of safety under Azerbaijani rule. This historical trauma informed Armenian perceptions and decision-making, creating a lens through which current events were interpreted.
Azerbaijan vehemently rejected ethnic cleansing allegations, characterizing its actions as restoration of territorial integrity and offering guarantees of equal rights for any Armenians choosing to remain. Azerbaijani officials pointed to the small number of Armenians who did remain, arguing this disproved ethnic cleansing claims. They characterized the exodus as a choice rather than forced displacement, despite the context of military defeat, blockade, and decades of ethnic hostility that informed that “choice.”
International Response: Limited Action
The international community’s response to the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis revealed the limitations of global governance structures in preventing humanitarian catastrophes, particularly when powerful states have interests in the outcome. While various countries and organizations expressed concern and called for humanitarian access and protection of civilians, concrete actions to halt or reverse the displacement remained minimal.
The United States issued statements expressing concern about humanitarian conditions and calling for international monitoring of the situation. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with leaders of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, urging respect for civilian populations and humanitarian access. However, U.S. influence proved limited, particularly given Azerbaijan’s strategic importance as an energy supplier to Europe and its partnership with Turkey, a NATO ally.
The European Union similarly expressed concern while taking limited concrete action. European officials called for humanitarian corridors, protection of cultural heritage sites, and eventual negotiations to address the conflict’s root causes. The European Parliament passed resolutions condemning the blockade and military actions, but these carried no enforcement mechanism. Europe’s dependence on Azerbaijani gas, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, constrained the willingness to impose meaningful consequences.
Russia, traditionally Armenia’s security guarantor through the Collective Security Treaty Organization, proved unwilling or unable to prevent the crisis despite having peacekeepers on the ground. Russia’s focus on its war in Ukraine limited attention and resources available for the Caucasus. Additionally, Russia’s relationship with Azerbaijan had grown closer in recent years, with Moscow seeking to maintain influence with both parties rather than choosing sides. The Russian peacekeepers’ failure to prevent the blockade or military operation raised serious questions about their mission’s purpose and effectiveness.
France emerged as perhaps the most vocal Western supporter of Armenia, with President Emmanuel Macron condemning Azerbaijan’s actions and pledging assistance to Armenia. However, France’s geographic distance from the region limited practical influence, while its criticism generated tensions with Turkey and Azerbaijan without materially altering the situation on the ground.
International humanitarian organizations including the United Nations, Red Cross, and various NGOs provided crucial assistance to refugees in Armenia and advocated for humanitarian access to Nagorno-Karabakh. However, their efforts focused on ameliorating consequences rather than preventing displacement or ensuring accountability for potential ethnic cleansing.
Geopolitical Implications and Regional Dynamics
The Nagorno-Karabakh crisis carries profound implications for regional geopolitics, potentially reshaping power dynamics across the South Caucasus for years to come. Azerbaijan emerged strengthened, having achieved its longstanding objective of reasserting control over Nagorno-Karabakh through a combination of military force, diplomatic leverage, and strategic patience. This success enhances Baku’s regional influence and demonstrates the effectiveness of its partnership with Turkey.
Turkey’s role as Azerbaijan’s primary supporter and enabler proved decisive, with Ankara providing military equipment, training, and diplomatic backing throughout the conflict. The crisis strengthens Turkey’s position in the Caucasus, projecting influence into a region where Russia traditionally dominated. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rhetoric about a “Turkic corridor” connecting Turkey to Central Asia through Azerbaijan gains practical viability with Armenian territorial losses.
Armenia faces its most serious strategic crisis since independence, having lost not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also credibility in its security guarantees and alliance relationships. The crisis triggered intense domestic political turmoil, with protests demanding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation for allegedly betraying Armenian interests. Armenia’s traditional security relationship with Russia appears fractured, with many Armenians viewing Russia’s failure to prevent the crisis as betrayal, while simultaneously recognizing their continued dependence on Russian security guarantees.
Russia’s position in the Caucasus suffered significant damage despite avoiding direct confrontation with Azerbaijan or Turkey. Moscow’s inability or unwillingness to protect its ally undermined Russia’s credibility as a security guarantor across the former Soviet space. Countries relying on Russian protection may draw concerning conclusions about Moscow’s reliability when its interests diverge from its allies’ needs. However, Russia retains leverage through its peacekeeping presence and relationships with all regional actors.
Iran watched developments with concern, fearing that strengthened Azerbaijan and expanded Turkish influence threaten Iranian interests. Tehran’s substantial Azerbaijani minority population creates sensitivities about ethno-nationalist rhetoric and territorial changes. Iran also worries about potential Azerbaijani-Turkish cooperation affecting the Armenian territory separating Turkey from Azerbaijan, which would alter regional connectivity and potentially isolate Iran.
The United States and Europe face difficult balancing acts, seeking to support Armenia while maintaining relationships with Azerbaijan as an energy supplier and Turkey as a NATO ally. The crisis exposed contradictions in Western policy, with energy security concerns and alliance politics limiting willingness to impose consequences for actions that arguably violated international humanitarian principles.
Cultural Heritage at Risk
Beyond the humanitarian catastrophe and geopolitical ramifications, the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis placed at risk extraordinary cultural heritage spanning millennia. The region contains hundreds of Armenian churches, monasteries, and historical sites, some dating to Christianity’s earliest centuries. These structures represent not merely architectural achievements but living connections to Armenian identity, history, and religious tradition.
Armenian cultural organizations expressed grave concern about the fate of these sites under Azerbaijani control. They pointed to documented destruction of Armenian cemeteries and churches in Nakhichevan, another Armenian-populated region that came under Azerbaijani control decades earlier, as precedent for their fears. Satellite imagery and investigative reporting documented systematic destruction of Armenian cultural sites in Nakhichevan, including thousands of distinctive cross-stones and medieval churches that were bulldozed or demolished.
The Dadivank monastery, one of Nagorno-Karabakh’s most important religious sites, became a focal point for concerns about cultural heritage protection. The medieval monastery complex, occupied by a small community of monks until the exodus, represents centuries of Armenian Christian tradition. Its fate under Azerbaijani control remains uncertain, despite official assurances about protecting cultural heritage sites.
Azerbaijan countered concerns by emphasizing its commitment to preserving cultural heritage and accusing Armenia of destroying Azerbaijani cultural sites during its control of surrounding territories. Baku pointed to UNESCO principles of cultural heritage protection and invited international monitoring. However, Armenia and international heritage organizations remained skeptical, noting the track record in Nakhichevan and the political incentives to erase visible Armenian presence from the territory.
The potential loss or destruction of cultural heritage sites represents an additional dimension of ethnic cleansing—the elimination not only of a living population but also of historical evidence of their presence. Cultural genocide, though distinct from physical genocide, carries profound implications for collective identity and memory. For Armenians, already bearing historical trauma from the 1915 genocide, the prospect of losing physical connections to ancestral lands adds another layer to the crisis’s psychological and emotional impact.
Conclusion: A Region Transformed
The 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh crisis marks a definitive end to three decades of conflict, but not through negotiated settlement or compromise that might have preserved Armenian presence and identity in the region. Instead, it concluded through the near-total displacement of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population, transforming a complex territorial dispute into a stark humanitarian catastrophe that emptied a region of its indigenous inhabitants within days.
Whether characterized as exodus or ethnic cleansing—or, more accurately, as both simultaneously—the events of September 2023 represent a profound failure of conflict resolution, international protection mechanisms, and humanitarian principles. Over 100,000 people lost their homes, their communities, and their ancestral lands. Centuries of Armenian cultural, religious, and historical presence in Nagorno-Karabakh appears to have ended, replaced by Azerbaijani control of a territory now largely depopulated but destined for eventual resettlement under different demographic circumstances.
The crisis raises troubling questions about the international community’s ability and willingness to prevent ethnic-based displacement in contemporary conflicts. Despite decades of “never again” rhetoric following historical genocides and ethnic cleansing, the world watched as an entire population fled in terror within days, with international response limited to expressions of concern and humanitarian assistance to refugees rather than prevention of the displacement itself.
For Armenia, the crisis represents a national trauma that will shape politics, security calculations, and collective psychology for generations. The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh constitutes not merely territorial defeat but a psychological and emotional blow to Armenian identity and self-perception. The failure of security guarantees and alliance relationships forces fundamental reconsideration of Armenia’s strategic orientation and survival strategies in a hostile neighborhood.
For Azerbaijan, the reassertion of control over Nagorno-Karabakh represents the culmination of three decades of effort and the restoration of territorial integrity. However, the manner in which this outcome was achieved—through blockade, military force, and mass displacement—leaves Azerbaijan facing international scrutiny regarding potential ethnic cleansing and questions about minority rights and cultural heritage protection.
The Nagorno-Karabakh crisis serves as a sobering reminder that ethnic conflicts, even those seemingly frozen for decades, can rapidly escalate to humanitarian catastrophes when geopolitical conditions shift and international attention focuses elsewhere. It demonstrates that populations vulnerable to displacement cannot rely on international protection when powerful regional actors align against them and great powers prove unwilling to intervene.
As Armenian refugees begin the difficult process of rebuilding lives in Armenia, as Azerbaijan consolidates control over Nagorno-Karabakh, and as international attention inevitably shifts to other crises, the fundamental questions raised by this catastrophe remain: How can international mechanisms better prevent ethnic-based displacement? What accountability exists for actions that empty entire regions of their indigenous populations? And how can traumatized communities and nations find paths toward healing and eventually, perhaps, reconciliation?
The answers to these questions remain uncertain, but the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis of 2023 will endure as a case study in how ethnic conflicts conclude when military force prevails over diplomacy, when regional power dynamics override humanitarian principles, and when populations caught in the middle must choose between displacement and the terrifying unknown of remaining under hostile rule. For the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, that choice has been made—an entire population chose exile over uncertainty, emptying a region in days and concluding a conflict that shaped three decades of Caucasus history.
