Transformation of the nagorno karabakh conflict

The main objective of this work - to assess the possibility of synthesized conflict transformation model to address the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. My problem is the work reads as follows: if the conflict management strategy still did not produce tangible results (and it is unlikely that it could give) for solving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should be thinking about other complex peacebuilding analysis and practice. To achieve the main objective of this work I had to address these tasks: 1.Make access to conflict transformation approach; 2.On the base of conflict transformation theory create synthesized research model of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; 3.To reveal what the internal causes leads to disagreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict issues; 4.To evaluate the role of external actors (Russia, Turkey, the EU, the U.S. and Iran), which indirectly involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; 5.Identify internal and external factors for the ratio of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict transformation perspective; There are the some conclusions of my research: Analysis of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through the prism of the five types of transformations shows that in the sense of the four types (structures, actors, problems, the elite level) the transformation took place at negative direction. Only the context transformation can be seen a positive transformation process, which may in the future affect positive transformation of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan is an important route for supplying oil and gas in the West, bypassing Russia. This increases the importance of Azerbaijan to the West, which may eventually be forced to increasingly focus on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict analysis showed that the activity of interior actors of second and third level have no impact on conflict transformation. Over the past 15 years in Armenia and Azerbaijan no ground for the first, the second and the third level actors’ interaction was created. It should be noted that Russia, Turkey and Iran do not use second and third track diplomacy in South Caucasus. EU, U.S. and Turkey, under certain conditions, can adress the second and third levels of transformation initiatives in niche Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In order to obtain greater effectiveness of such initiatives should be established a structure to coordinate the second-and third-level diplomatic efforts in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia remains a major obstacle to the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. South Caucasus, Moscow considers its "near abroad" in its sphere of influence, so it reacts cautiously to U.S. and EU promotes of democracy and human rights initiatives. In this case, Russia sees post-modern Western peace-building strategies as nothing more than a Western desire to assert its influence in the region. Unlikely that Russia would be interested in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement. The Western strategy for implementing the transformation of the conflict must pay attention to the importance of the Russian factor and focus on long-term work – the transformation of the structure and problems in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Internal and external context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict analysis presupposes the view that the compromise between the Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities in the near future is impossible. One of the most realistic option is the establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey. If Ankara will agree to establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan and open the border, the situation in the region may be in a positive change. Most importantly, it would reduce Russia's role both in Armenia and the South Caucasus. This should be most interested in Turkey. In my view, the first track diplomacy of the Western diplomats’ efforts should be aimed at precisely that direction