Follow us on social

Armenia Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh

Armenians' fate in Nagorno-Karabakh hangs in the balance

Azerbaijan launches military assault while Russia is distracted in Ukraine

Analysis | QiOSK

Update 9/19, 2 p.m.: A United States official said that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will hold urgent talks in the next 24 hours with all sides to end the “egregious” operation by Azerbaijan. A press statement by Blinken called "for an immediate end to hostilities and for respectful dialogue between Baku and representatives of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh."



It appears that Azerbaijan has decided to finish off by force what remains of the ethnic Armenian population in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh; and judging by the response of the international community to Azerbaijani moves in recent years, nobody appears willing to do much to prevent it.

In the early afternoon of September 19, the Azerbaijani military launched a “local anti-terrorist” operation against the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh to “...ultimately restore the constitutional order of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” The move follows their disputed claims that mines “planted by the reconnaissance-subversion groups of Armenia’s armed forces” blew up civilian and military vehicles, resulting in six dead.

This development comes after weeks of anticipation of such an attack given Azerbaijani troop movements near the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, the increased airborne deliveries from Israel which supplies Azerbaijan with a large proportion of its armaments, and counter-preparations by the ethnic Armenian forces amidst an over nine-month long blockade of the Lachin Corridor.

The Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense statement claimed that “the civilian population and civilian infrastructure facilities are not targeted. Only legitimate military targets are being incapacitated.” However, reports from on the ground in the de facto capital of Stepanakert show shelling and civilian casualties.

Since the Moscow-brokered ceasefire that ended the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 and brought Russian peacekeepers to the region, tensions have been escalating as Baku has sought to fully assert its control over the long-disputed territory. At first, the peacekeepers were generally able to protect what remained of Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh after the successful Azerbaijani 2020 assault. However, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the huge commitment and losses of Russian forces there, Russia’s military ability to intervene in Nagorno-Karabakh seems largely to have vanished.

Azerbaijan for its part had repeatedly and unequivocally stated that there is no need for outside intervention in its domestic affairs as Yerevan, Brussels, and Washington increased their calls for the future guarantee of the rights and security of Karabakh Armenians under Azerbaijani rule.

Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan has said that Azerbaijan wants to involve Armenia into a large-scale war but that Armenia is not and will not become involved in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Charles Michel, President of the European Council, said on X, formerly Twitter, that the “Military actions of Azerbaijan must be immediately halted to allow for a genuine dialogue between Baku and Karabakh Armenians.” The office of EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell issued a statement condemning the military escalation.

Russia has urged the conflicting parties to “stop the bloodshed, immediately cease hostilities and return to the path of a political and diplomatic settlement.” Moscow also rejected Baku’s claim that they had informed the Russian side in advance of the assault.

The U.S. still has yet to make any statement on the situation. However, in comments to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Yuri Kim, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs made clear that the U.S. condemns the use of force and will not accept any moves “to ethnically cleanse or commit other atrocities against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.”

What the fate of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh illustrates with tragic force is that while for a generation the United States and its NATO allies have been implacably hostile to Russia’s presence in the South Caucasus, they have neither the ability nor the will to replace Russia — which is now bogged down in Ukraine — as a security provider in the region, and to resolve or contain its ethnic disputes. Therefore, for Armenians, the tragedy of the war in Ukraine and its repercussions are being felt directly in the South Caucasus.

Editor's Note: Artin Dersimonian was an intern at the Armenian Embassy in Washington in 2018. The Terjenian-Thomas Assembly Internship Program at the Armenian Assembly — which is mentioned in the QI brief on which this article is based — facilitated Dersimonian's internship with the embassy.


Protesters gather near the government building, after Azerbaijan launched a military operation in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, in Yerevan, Armenia, September 19, 2023. Vahram Baghdasaryan/Photolure via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY.

Analysis | QiOSK
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.