Introduction: The South Caucasus has long been the focus of attention of regional and trans-regional powers due to its unique geopolitical, geostrategic and geo-economic location. The geographical location of this region and its location at the crossroads of roads leading to the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Indian Ocean, as well as the connection and linkage of Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East through the Caucasus, have all contributed to the strategic importance of this region and attracted various actors. For more than three decades, the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis has become one of the main challenges to the security and stability of the South Caucasus region. Accordingly, the South Caucasus security complex, previously known as a security zone under Russian influence, has become a chaotic security entity in recent decades due to the encounter with a set of external and internal factors. The war marked a significant shift, altering the traditional balance of power and reducing Russia's historical dominance in favor of new actors like Turkey and Israel. Since late 2019, a set of factors, including shifts in the military balance, the intervention of external actors and the weakening of state institutional structures, have influenced the spread and escalation of conflict. The aim of this study is to model these fundamental contexts by developing and applying a four-dimensional analytical framework to the case of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Research question: What factors are influencing the spread and escalation of the conflict between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia in the South Caucasus region?
Research hypothesis: The spread and escalation of the conflict is influenced by four interconnected factors: 1) the weakening of state institutional structures, 2) changes in the balance of power 3) the role of regional/international actors, and 4) the degree of convergence in the global system.
Methodology and theoretical framework: This qualitative research uses thematic analysis with an exploratory-analytical approach and is based on documented data (reliable articles, books and reports). The theoretical framework combines several theories: The fragile/failed state theory (for model 1), realist perspectives on the balance of power (for model 2), theories of foreign intervention and alliance politics (for model 3) and theories of complex interdependence and globalization (for model 4). Data analysis followed a systematic six-step thematic analysis process and generated initial codes that were organized into sub-themes and ultimately into the four main thematic models. To ensure the validity and accuracy of the findings, strategies such as careful peer review, clear documentation of the process and consistent reference to evidence were used. The study develops a four-dimensional model to analyze the dynamics of this conflict.
Results and discussion: The findings confirm the hypotheses of all four models and reveal their interrelation in a vicious cycle of escalating tensions. Model 1 (Weakening of State Institutional Structures): A sharp asymmetry emerged between institutional strengthening in Azerbaijan (driven by energy revenues and centralized state-building) and institutional weakening in Armenia (characterized by political instability, corruption and governance challenges after 2018). This imbalance severely weakened Armenia's conflict management capacity, exposed its vulnerability and encouraged Azerbaijan's military action in 2020. Model 2 (shifts in the Balance of Power): Azerbaijan's sustained economic growth enabled a comprehensive military modernization program, particularly in drone warfare with Turkish and Israeli support. This created a decisive qualitative military advantage and fundamentally changed the traditional balance of power. Armenia, struggling with economic constraints, failed to respond adequately, making the seizure of territory by force a viable option for Azerbaijan. Model 3 (Role of Regional/International Actors): Asymmetric external support played a pivotal role. Azerbaijan benefited from strong and multilateral support (military, diplomatic, technological) from Turkey and Israel. In contrast, Armenia received only limited and inconsistent support from its traditional ally, Russia, which sought to balance its interests. This asymmetric empowerment reduced the feasibility of diplomatic solutions and increased the incentive for military action. Model 4 (Degree of Convergence in the Global System): Divergent levels of global and regional integration exacerbated perceived inequalities rather than reducing tensions. Azerbaijan has successfully integrated into global energy corridors and strategic partnerships, increasing its resources and international standing. Armenia faced relative isolation and economic dependence, mainly on Russia. This gap in systemic integration deepened strategic differences and fueled competing narratives. The discussion emphasizes that these models operate interactively. For example, external support (Model 3) directly increased the power of Azerbaijan (Model 2), which in turn exploited Armenia's institutional weaknesses (Model 1), all within a context shaped by differential global integration (Model 4).
Conclusion: This study successfully models the contexts of the spread and escalation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict through a robust four-dimensional framework. The analysis shows that the interaction of fragile domestic institutions, decisive shifts in the balance of power, asymmetric intervention by external actors and divergent paths of global integration has created a self-reinforcing cycle of conflict escalation. The 2020 war served as a definitive manifestation of this interaction. The conclusions emphasize that achieving lasting peace requires a comprehensive, multi-level approach that simultaneously addresses all four dimensions: strengthening democratic institutions and governance (especially in Armenia), managing and balancing external interventions, creating mechanisms for collective security to adjust the balance of power and promoting inclusive regional economic cooperation that benefits all parties. The proposed four-dimensional model provides a powerful analytical tool not only for understanding the South Caucasus conflict, but also for examining the dynamics of interstate conflicts in other peripheral regions of the international system, where the complex interplay of domestic vulnerabilities, regional power shifts and global linkages often exacerbates conflict.