3: did you know a war just ended?

The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War just ended, showing that once again, violence in conflict has dramatically decreased.

I had written in the first article on this website that we often know when conflicts or wars begin, but not as often when they end. I’m happy to say that the world’s newest war, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war, has already ended.

Article written by Zachar

Farah: Why was there a war in the first place?

Good question. I don’t know exactly. I’ll get into it a little further down, but the simple answer is that the war was technically over territory that both Armenians and Azerbaijanis claim. The Azerbaijanis ended up with more territory than before so a lot of Armenians are not happy with the war’s conclusion and a lot of Azerbaijanis are happy with it. Either way nobody is killing each other anymore, and if you’re the kind of person that likes when people are still alive, I’m sure you’d agree that this is an improvement in the situation no matter what your nationality.

Farah: But why were they fighting now?

To be honest I have no idea what this war was about. The news said something vague about ethnic tensions and historical grievances. But war is almost never about these things alone. Tensions and grievances are never inflamed by themselves. They have to be brought to the boiling point because of current events. 

From my skewed perspective and limited knowledge, it looks like this war was really about Russia and Turkey taking away power from Armenia because of their 2018 anti-authoritarian revolution. Worried about Trump potentially losing the election, Russia and Turkey decided to act before the US elections and then ended the war the moment Biden was elected, because Biden is likely to impose sanctions on both Russia and Turkey when they do naughty things like start wars. It was probably also about Russia and Turkey continuing their proxy war against each other. Russia is Armenia’s traditional alley, and Turkey is like Azerbaijan’s big brother.

What the news says and doesn’t say about war and violence.

The news might tell you some of that. What the news will probably focus more on is how unhappy the Armenians are feeling about the war they lost. 

But they’re skipping over the most important thing about this. A fast end to violence means a lot more people are still alive. The First Nagorno-Karabakh War was about the same issues but killed a lot more people. I think that’s something worth looking at.

Two Wars over Nagorno-Karabakh: the dramatic decline of violence in war since the 1990s.

By its end, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War killed about 4,000 people, 130,000 were displaced, and it lasted from 27 September until 10 November; 45 days.* 

The First Nagorno-Karabakh War, which started in 1988, lasted 6 years, killed something like 20,000 – 30,000 people, and over a million people were displaced. Maybe more.*

1990s vs. 2020 (First Nagorno-Karabakh War vs. Second Nagorno-Karabakh War): 

6 years vs 45 days

20,000 – 30,000 people killed vs 4,000

1,000,000 people displaced vs 130,000*

1990’s or 2020: Neither of these figures are coming from the nicest of years, but if you were living in Armenia and/or Azerbaijan, which would you rather be living in?

What most people don’t know is that you could be almost anywhere in the world and still, if you wanted to live in a less violent time, you would choose 2020 over the 1990s. And the 1990’s over the 1980s. And the 1980’s over the 1970s. And so on until the 1950s. Violence in conflict everywhere is constantly decreasing and has been for a very long time. You can read more about this in my first article here.

*All these numbers according to Wikipedia.

Farah: Why is violence in conflict (as well as violence in general) decreasing all over the world? Why was the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War not as bad as the First Nagorno-Karabakh War? 

I have to give you my least favourite but most important answer in science: I don’t know.

One of the main reasons I wanted to make this website is so we could discover the reasons behind the dramatic decline of violence in the world. It’s one of the many things humanity is doing right. Understanding the reasons behind this is the first step to ensuring the decline in violence will continue.

Farah is giving me look like she’s not at all impressed.

OK Farah, here are my pet theories then. I have nothing to back them up except my optimism and experience travelling the world.

Pet theory one: less poverty = less violence

The dramatic decline of violence in conflict might have something to do with more and more people being able to escape poverty. Inequality is increasing, but that doesn’t mean the poor are becoming more poor. The rich are getting very very very rich but the poor are also getting richer. I know it doesn’t feel like that’s true, especially in the US, but I’m sure that it’s true for Nagorno-Karabakh.

Pet theory two: more successful development = less violence

The dramatic decline of violence in conflict might have something to do with countries developing far more successfully than before. When you think of Nagorno-Karabakh, you might think of some dusty cluster of villages where everyone herds sheep and stays within the city walls at night. 

Like this photo of Nagorno-Karabakh from Wikipedia. Places like that still exist in 2020 but they are becoming increasingly rare.

Now let’s look at this video of a cluster bomb being dropped on a neighbourhood in Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh’s small capital. 

That could just as well have happened in the small city in Germany that I live close to. I would never be able to tell the difference. As places become more developed, there’s more incentive not to destroy them. 

On the other hand, in the years before the first world war, this was one of the main arguments against the possibility of a war between European states. 

In that romantic time when gentlemen in top hats sipped brandy and smoked cigars and opium discussing the latest Monet painting or experiments on prisoners they were performing, they would say of a European war, “War amongst the European would be to the benefit of no-one, so it’s not going to happen.”

But European war did happen, and it happened twice. On the other hand, there have been very few wars between countries that have a McDonalds.

Pet theory three: more communication = less violence

My favourite pet theory for the dramatic decline of violence in conflict is that it has something to do with having an increasing amount of communication. The more we speak, the more we empathize. (Unless you’re on Facebook.) The more we see, the more we really empathize. What are you going to remember most about this article? All these words and facts, or the video of the neighbourhood being bombed? 

After seeing that video, you’re probably thinking some form of, “that’s a dumb way to go about solving problems between countries,” or maybe something as basic as, “hmm, that shouldn’t happen.” That video is what real war looks like, and it’s as dumb as it looks and it shouldn’t happen. If you were Armenian or Azerbaijani, you might be thinking, “I don’t want my brother/husband/son to have to go to a place where that happens.” Or maybe even, “I don’t want that to happen to my neighbourhood.”

The more we see what real war looks like, the more consensus there is to stop it. I sometimes wonder what would’ve happened if the American Civil War happened in an era that had camera phones and internet.

Did you know that at the beginning of the American Civil War, just before the first battle started, people came to the outskirts of the battlefield with picnic baskets and in giddy anticipation of a good show? Eventually the chaos of the battle caught up with the picnickers and what followed was the worst picnic ever. I suspect if both the North and the South saw whatever those picnic-goers saw, a horrified nation would’ve found a way out of the intensely violent and chaotic years of war that the US still isn’t able to recover from.

We will explore the reasons behind the decline in violence in further articles, as well as how to end and recover from conflict faster. Most importantly, I’ll be focusing on what can be done to prevent a political conflict from becoming a violent one.

As photos are so memorable, I would like to end this article with an impression of Armenia and Azerbaijan that’s more than a single street that got cluster-bombed. Here are some photos of the real Armenia and Azerbaijan. I won’t label which country is which so you can see the beauty without the politics.