OMM Newsroom
On September 27, 2020, Azerbaijan launched military operations in Garabagh and surrounding districts, which had remained under Armenian control since the 1994 ceasefire and are internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory.
AnewZ writes that 44 days later, a trilateral statement signed with Russian mediation halted the fighting and confirmed a military and political shift that few observers had considered possible a decade earlier. The war quickly became a subject of military debate beyond the South Caucasus. Portraying it simply as a “drone war,” in which a single technology proved decisive, reflects only part of what happened. Azerbaijan’s success was linked to long-term preparation, a consistent strategy, favorable diplomacy and the effective integration of new capabilities into conventional military operations.
Preparation and the advance on the southern front
The roots of the 2020 war lie in the First Garabagh War. After that conflict, Armenian forces controlled Garabagh and seven surrounding districts, and mass displacement took place. The OSCE Minsk Group process, which continued for more than two decades, failed to produce a settlement. Azerbaijan’s limited territorial gains in the four-day war of April 2016 indicated that the military balance was beginning to shift. Baku drew on lessons from that confrontation in its subsequent preparations.
Azerbaijan used energy revenues to finance a sustained modernization program. Defense spending went toward acquiring new equipment and capabilities. Diversifying suppliers was also important: Azerbaijan bought weapons and technology from Russia, Israel and, increasingly, Türkiye. Military cooperation with Ankara went beyond procurement, encompassing training, joint exercises and doctrinal influence. This cooperation brought some elements of NATO-style command practices to the Azerbaijani Armed Forces.
Azerbaijan concentrated its main offensive on the flatter southern front along the border with Iran. The advance through Fuzuli and Jabrayil toward Zangilan and Qubadli put pressure on the Armenian defense system from the flank. Although the advance was gradual and came with losses, it disrupted supply lines and brought Azerbaijani units closer to the Lachin corridor, the main road between Garabagh and Armenia.
The announcement on November 8 that Shusha had been liberated dealt a decisive blow. The city, located above Khankendi and overlooking the Lachin road, was captured mainly by light infantry and special forces moving through wooded and mountainous terrain, rather than by armored columns. This showed that the war was ultimately won through ground operations by Azerbaijani soldiers able to capture and hold key positions. The loss of Shusha severely weakened Armenia’s position, and Yerevan’s leadership subsequently accepted the ceasefire terms.
The role of unmanned systems and the cost of war
One of the war’s most visible features was the systematic use of unmanned systems. Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones and loitering munitions such as Israel-made Harop struck air-defense batteries, artillery, tanks, logistics vehicles and troop concentrations. Azerbaijan also used modified An-2 biplanes as decoys to reveal the positions of Armenian air-defense assets. Armenia’s largely Soviet-era air-defense network, which included Osa and Strela systems, struggled to respond effectively to the range of aerial threats it faced.
Technology also reshaped the information space. Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense regularly released videos of strikes, influencing public morale at home and perceptions abroad as events unfolded. Social media became a major arena in the contest over the meaning and course of the conflict.
However, it would be wrong to explain the outcome solely through drones. Unmanned systems played an important supporting role by limiting the defending side’s ability to reinforce forces and adapt to the situation, but they did not replace ground maneuver or coordinated firepower.
Their advantage came from their use within a combined-arms framework: intelligence guided artillery and missile strikes, attacks on logistics facilities weakened resistance at the front, and infantry exploited the resulting gaps. Technology increased the effectiveness of overall military operations, but did not eliminate the need for soldiers to capture and hold territory.
Victory came at a heavy cost to both sides. Thousands of service members were killed, and civilians were also harmed. Azerbaijani cities such as Ganja and Barda came under missile and artillery fire, while Khankendi was subjected to sustained shelling.
Human Rights Watch said its investigations documented the use of cluster munitions during the conflict by Azerbaijani forces, as well as by Armenian or Armenia-backed forces. Azerbaijan has officially denied using the weapons; Armenia has also denied using them. Those findings should therefore be presented with attribution, alongside the governments’ positions. International human rights organizations also reported ill-treatment of prisoners and other possible violations of the laws of war. The military lessons of the conflict must also take account of its human toll.
The political consequences of the war
For Azerbaijan, the 2020 war changed much of the previous conflict’s territorial outcome and marked a decisive step toward restoring control over internationally recognized territories. It also changed the conditions in which subsequent peace negotiations took place.
The five principles proposed by Azerbaijan in 2022 placed mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity at the center of the diplomatic process. The initialing of the text of a peace agreement in Washington was an important stage in the process. However, initialing the draft does not mean that its signing, ratification and implementation have been completed.
For Armenia, the changing regional environment created an opportunity to reconsider strategic assumptions and build relations with its neighbors on the basis of mutual recognition and practical cooperation.
Azerbaijan’s military operation in September 2023 led to the disarmament of separatist forces and the restoration of Baku’s full control over the region. The event showed that 2020 was not the final chapter, but a decisive turning point.
The broader lesson is not that conventional forces have become irrelevant because of drones. Rather, a state can change a long-standing military balance by combining patient investment, leadership, strategic clarity and effective partnerships with the considered use of new technologies.
The 44-day war demonstrated the importance of bringing these factors together. Its military significance lies in the interaction between technology and strategy; its long-term political significance will depend on whether the opportunities created by its outcome can be turned into lasting regional peace.
