In October and early November 2020,
Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a brief but bloody war over Nagorno-Karabakh.
After a 44-day conflict that saw Azerbaijani forces retake
large swathes of territory, the sides accepted a Moscow-brokered
ceasefire agreement that stationed Russian peacekeepers in the region.
But a year on from the war, how do people in Armenia really feel about the conflict?
And where do they see things going in the future?
Hello and welcome from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia.
If you're new to the channel, my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an
informed look at international relations, conflicts and the origins of countries.
There are few, if any, events more traumatic for a nation than war.
All the more so when a country finds itself on the losing end of a conflict.
But while fighting will often attract considerable media attention,
what happens when hostilities are over and the world's attention disappears?
How do countries come to terms with a conflict?
How do they rationalise it? And what debates emerge about the future?
For almost three decades, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh was one of the
most serious territorial conflicts in the world.
However, in October and November 2020 Armenia and Azerbaijan
went to war and Azerbaijan managed to retake large parts of the territory.
But what effect has this had in Armenia?
I've covered Nagorno-Karabakh in several other videos,
but by way of summary the issue emerged with the end of the Soviet Union.
Predominantly inhabited by ethnic Armenians,
Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous province of Azerbaijan.
However, as the USSR disintegrated it broke away - declaring independence in January 1992.
This sparked a bitter war that not only saw the Armenian side consolidate its
control over Nagorno-Karabakh, but also seized a number of surrounding Azerbaijani districts.
In the years that followed, efforts were made to resolve the conflict
and eventually the sides agreed on a set of guiding settlement principles.
However, little progress was made towards reaching a final agreement.
While Nagorno-Karabakh now came to be seen as a frozen conflict, it was anything but.
As well as frequent confrontations along the ceasefire line,
there were also several major outbreaks of fighting.
For example, in 2016 the sides fought a four-day conflict that saw several hundred killed.
Then, in July 2020, there was another outbreak of fighting.
But this was just a prelude to something far more serious.
At the end of September 2020, a full-scale war erupted.
This time the fighting lasted six weeks.
By the time Russia broke at a ceasefire, on 10 November,
all the Armenian-held areas surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
had been retaken by Azerbaijani forces - as had a considerable part of Nagorno-Karabakh itself.
What remains beyond Azerbaijan's control is now protected by Russian peacekeepers
There are obviously lots of dimensions to the conflict.
However, there are also a few key questions that, at least to me, really stand out.
The first is how prepared Armenia was for the war.
Looked at from outside, all the signs were there that Baku was
preparing to retake Nagorno-Karabakh by force.
But how was it seen here? Were these signs missed? Were people complacent?
In truth, it seems that they were aware of what was coming.
They heard the statements coming from Azerbaijan.
They knew about the country's military buildup and its arms purchases.
Everyone could see the rise in incidents along the ceasefire line.
This was a war that was not only expected, but many see as unavoidable.
Seen from here at least, Azerbaijan had decided on a conflict
and wasn't interested in a negotiated settlement.
Of course, Azerbaijan would inevitably regard the situation differently;
but this is the view one gets here in Yerevan.
Regarding the war itself, as one can imagine it's an extremely
sensitive and difficult subject for the country.
It's naturally challenged a sense of invulnerability that had set in over
several decades that armenia held control of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding areas.
So, how do people explain the country's defeat?
This is actually reconciled in a rather interesting way.
One hears a lot of anger about Turkey's support for Azerbaijan;
not just in terms of equipment but also in terms of military leadership and guidance.
Many feel Turkey directed the war.
In this regard, there's a deeply held view that Azerbaijan didn't engage in a fair fight.
Many argue that things would have been different if Baku hadn't had Turkish,
and to a degree Israeli, technical support.
Of course, this isn't how wars are fought.
States use whatever help they can get.
But it's interesting how often the idea of an unfair fight is raised.
Tied to this is the question of how people perceive the role of other outside actors.
Regarding the European Union and the United States, there's a clear sense
of disillusionment about their lack of action.
Quite apart from the view that they should have stepped in to stop the war because that
was the right thing to do, there's also a more geopolitical - even civilizational - aspect to it.
I heard many references to the idea that Armenia is the one country
preventing the creation of a Turkic arc stretching from Europe to Central Asia.
People here believe that Armenia's vital position
should be understood and that the country should be fully supported.
However, as one might expect, the most complex picture emerges over Russia.
Armenia was considered to have a close
relationship with Moscow and many Armenians will still say that Moscow is a key ally.
Indeed, Russia's influence can still be felt very strongly here.
But one does get a real sense of anger and suspicion about Russia's role in the war.
After all, it only stepped in at the last moment; when most Armenian-held territory had been lost.
If people trust Russia, it seems to be more out of a sense that they have no real choice
but to do so: who else can they rely on?
But you really do get a sense that they don't really truly have faith in that trust in Moscow.
The third question I had was about the effects of the war on society.
At a political level, the immediate aftermath of the conflict saw deep unrest.
But where do things stand a year on?
On the surface, at least viewed from central Yerevan,
there's little to indicate that this is a country that's overcoming a major war.
This seems like a remarkably normal country to a casual outside observer.
The city is bustling and one sees good restaurants,
high-end shops, and plenty of nice cars.
It's really hard to believe that it's experienced such a serious conflict just a year ago.
And yet, beneath the surface, it's clear that the war has obviously had a profound effect.
As was pointed out to me, no family was untouched.
Many volunteered to fight, thousands were killed, and many are still missing.
And there are occasional stark reminders of conflict;
like the plaque dedicated to a young soldier who lost his life in 2016.
And this brings me to the final major question: where do people see the situation going from here?
There's certainly a sense of unfinished business, in every way,
First of all there's the unfinished business of the 2020 conflict.
Armenian soldiers are still being held prisoner by Azerbaijan with many put on trial
and there have been allegations of torture and even executions.
Obviously, this is an extremely sensitive issue.
But there's also a sense that the 2020 conflict hasn't really ended.
There are also skirmishes along the new ceasefire
line - with a particularly heavy bout of fighting in November 2021.
Many here feel that full-scale fighting could yet erupt again.
As for the longer term picture, one gets the sense - outwardly
at least - that people certainly haven't given up on Nagorno-Karabakh.
As they see it, it's not lost.
Yes, the 2020 war was a setback. But the land will be retaken.
Of course, how much of this is bravado and how much is genuinely believed is hard to say.
But they do sincerely believe that it is, and should be, a part of Armenia.
Indeed, just as Azerbaijanis spoke of their territory being held by the Armenians,
Armenians now speak of their territory being held by Azerbaijanis.
In this regard, one gets the sense that this isn't a conflict that's ended in the minds of Armenians.
But quite how it will be resolved is far from clear.
The compromise of some form of territorial autonomy
just doesn't seem to be acceptable to either side; at least for now.
The one thing that is certain, at least viewed from this vantage point,
is that it's far too soon to talk about any longer-term settlement,
let alone reconciliation, between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan was long expected.
However, when it came, it proved to be far quicker and more decisive than many had expected.
Azerbaijan scored a major victory that only fell short of a decisive conflict-ending victory
by Russia's decision to broker a ceasefire at what was essentially the last moment.
But a year later, how do Armenians see the situation?
As with any conflict, there are of course many perspectives on what took place and,
as an outsider, one only sees a small part of society and hears a fraction of the debate.
But there are some interesting themes that nevertheless emerge.
Seen from here, this was an expected war - an inevitable war - but a war
that people feel Azerbaijan won only with outside help.
There's a disillusionment about the role of outside actors,
but also there's a belief that this isn't the end of the story: Artsakh remains Armenian.
However, one also gets the sense that the reality of the situation
still hasn't really and truly sunk in.
Again, a year on,
life certainly seems remarkably untouched by what happened - at least on the surface.
Yerevan is a vibrant, interesting and immensely welcoming city.
But, as one diaspora Armenian now living in the city said to me,
behind this apparent normality this is a country still in the state of denial about what happened.