International report

Ten years on, the UK's decision to leave the European Union is increasingly seen as more than a single referendum result. Critics argue it reflected a wider crisis of political imagination, with Brexit supporters misreading both Britain and the world, while the promised future never arrived. The referendum held on 23 June 2016 remains one of the defining decisions in modern British history. Supporters promised sovereignty, control, lower red tape, new trade deals and a more dynamic “Global Britain”. Critics are unequivocal that Brexit has left Britain poorer, weaker and less able to deal with global shocks 10 years after voters chose to leave the European Union. Opponents argue that many of those promises have not been met. Britain is more constrained, less attractive to investors and still divided over what Brexit was supposed to mean. Nevertheless, the vote marked the moment Britain “changed track”, Colin Hay, professor of political science at Sciences Po in Paris, tells RFI. “Its relationship with the European Union and its relationship with the rest of the world has changed fundamentally from this moment onwards,” Hay said. “And 10 years on, we can see that very clearly now.” Two years after Brexit 'got done', poll shows many Britons want new referendum A changed Britain Brexit is hard to judge as a normal policy decision, Hay argues, because voters were asked to choose a direction without knowing what form leaving the EU would eventually take. “People didn’t know what the Brexit that they were voting for, if they voted for it, would turn out to be, and now they can see, and there’s a certain amount of buyer’s remorse, I think,” Hay says. One of the strongest attacks on Brexit has come recently from Michael Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister, who called it a “self-imposed disaster” and a “con”. He also said those who sold it should “hang their heads in shame”. For Hay, Heseltine was pointing to a real problem in British politics – especially the way Europe moved from a low-profile issue to the central question shaping political life. “The question of Britain’s relationship to Europe was – until UKIP came along and until the Brexit referendum – a relatively low salience issue,” Hay said. “Since 2016 and since the campaign, it has been the single dominant issue, which has influenced everything else.” That change helped Nigel Farage, UKIP and later Reform UK become powerful forces in British politics, while also damaging the Conservative Party. 'Rogue state' UK stands by new Brexit legislation which breaks international law Economic costs The economic impact of UK's departure from the European Union is now clearer than it was at the time of the referendum, Hay tells RFI, though he adds that Brexit cannot be separated entirely from the other shocks Britain has faced over the past 10 years. “I think it’s as clear as it could be, but there’s a caveat in that, and that is that a lot’s happened in Britain over the last 10 years, lots happened in the world over the last 10 years, and to identify and to isolate the Brexit effect is actually quite tricky,” he says. The Bank of England has tried to measure the impact, estimating “a drop of 6 percent of GDP lost, as it were, to Brexit”. But the wider cost may be greater because Brexit also affected Britain’s ability to deal with later crises, including Covid and the Ukraine war, he argues. Five years on, has Brexit put Britain at a disadvantage in EU talks? “Britain is less well placed to deal with those shocks and challenges today than it would otherwise have been in the absence of Brexit,” Hay continues. The idea of a newly liberated “Global Britain” was always weak, because the UK already had many favourable trade terms through its EU membership. “I think the idea of a kind of new ‘Global Britain’ liberated from Europe was always a bit of a myth, frankly,” Hay says. The promise of “Singapore-on-Thames” also failed to deliver. Britain was already a relatively lightly regulated European economy and had long been highly deregulated in financial services. “There’s been a marginal move in the direction of light regulation, but it’s not really achieved any positive gain for the British economy overall,” Hay said. Countdown to Brexit: Polls predict Leave campaign wins Campaign arguments However, the Leave campaign was highly effective in attacking warnings from economists, diplomats, businesses and officials with “Project Fear”. That tactic weakened the role of evidence in the debate, while the Leave side also used the promise that Brexit would free up money for the National Health Service. “I think the Brexit campaign was most effective in a sense, because it was able to discredit and disable any evidence, any expertise that was brought on the remain side of the debate to the table,” Hay says. The campaign, led in part by Farage and his populist message, encouraged voters to reject not only the EU but also “the form of expert technocratic governance associated with that”, he argues. At the same time, Leave campaigners used a simple financial promise. “They plastered a big number on big red buses and implied that a vote for Brexit would liberate the public finances and allow high levels of investment in the NHS, amongst other things,” Hay says. The result did not match that promise, he adds. EU and UK clash in first post-Brexit legal battle over North Sea fishing ban “Anyone who’s tried to be treated in a British hospital in the 10 years since 2016 knows that that didn’t turn out very well,” Hay says. Brexit supporters often argue that the vote was not mainly about economics but about sovereignty and control. Farage and others have also claimed that Brexit failed because it was never properly implemented. Hay explains that argument was easy to make and had been repeated since Theresa May’s time as prime minister, when she faced pressure to deliver a harder and more economically costly form of Brexit. But public opinion has shifted over the past decade. “I think the argument that Brexit was not properly implemented, and that’s why it’s not turned out as well as it could have done, has not particularly been accepted by the public,” says Hay. Around 20 to 30 percent of those who voted for Brexit would now vote remain if given the chance again, he estimates. Burnham wins key UK poll, paving way for bid to challenge PM Starmer Uncertain future Meanwhile, Keir Starmer’s government has been trying to rebuild bridges with the EU while avoiding a return to the divisions of the Brexit years. The debate inside Labour is also becoming more complex, with questions over how far any future leader could go in rebuilding Britain’s relationship with the EU. For Hay, Britain’s uncertainty 10 years after Brexit is closely tied to economic weakness. “It’s much easier to be confident about Britain if it has a stronger economy,” he says. “The Labour administration assumed it would have more fiscal space to do positive things every single time it looks at the books,” Hay said. “It finds there’s no money in the coffer, and if there’s no money in the coffer there’s not much you can do.” Ten years after the vote, Brexit remains more than a question of treaties, borders and trade. It is also a question of what Britain was promised, what was delivered and how much control the country really gained.

Nikol Pashinyan’s sweeping re-election in Armenia has raised fresh hopes that the border with Turkey could finally reopen after three decades of closure. The Armenian prime minister campaigned on restoring ties with Turkey and Azerbaijan, as well as moving Armenia closer to Europe – but constitutional reform remains a major obstacle. The vote on 7 June gave Nikol Pashinyan a clear victory over the opposition. But his success could prove bittersweet after he fell short of the parliamentary majority needed to change the constitution. Changing the constitution is part of Pashinyan’s peace efforts with Azerbaijan, brokered last year by United States President Donald Trump. “This government is committed to passing what the Armenian opposition would refer to as 'the Aliyev referendum',” said Eric Hacopian, a Yerevan-based political consultant. “The problem is, now they have no votes to bring it up because you need to get a two-thirds vote to change the constitution.” Armenia PM Pashinyan wins vote, cementing pro-Western shift Constitutional hurdles On the back of the Washington peace talks, “Armenia and Azerbaijan had an understanding that, after the election in Armenia, there would be certain constitutional amendments”, explained Hikmet Hajiyev, chief foreign policy adviser to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. Baku insists Armenia must remove claims to Nagorno-Karabakh from the preamble to its constitution. The two countries have clashed repeatedly over the contested territory. In 2023, Azerbaijan retook the breakaway enclave, causing more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians to flee. “We are looking forward to Armenia completely eliminating elements of its territorial claims,” Hajiyev said. “Then we will not have any stumbling blocks or hurdles on our agenda to move forward.” Constitutional reform is also seen as important for normalising Armenia’s ties with Turkey, according to Hajiyev. “It's not directly linked, but indirectly,” he said. “Once the Azerbaijan-Armenia agenda is solved, then Turkey will also act in a synchronised manner, opening the borders and also establishing a closer relationship.” Armenia election: what the vote could mean for Russia, the West and Azerbaijan Border hopes Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993, siding with Azerbaijan after ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence and seized Azerbaijani lands. Efforts to restore ties are now gathering pace, said Zeynep Alemdar, an international relations professor at Dogus University in Istanbul. “They've already declared in May 2026 that the border is going to be opened up, and all the bureaucratic, paperwork-type obstacles are actually being dismantled,” Alemdar said, noting that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is believed to get on well with Pashinyan. Pashinyan’s Turkey visit signals new chapter as Ankara eyes Caucasus shift But energy-rich Azerbaijan remains crucial to Ankara, Alemdar said. “Economically, comparing Azerbaijan versus Armenia for Ankara, of course Azerbaijan always wins... Of course Azerbaijan is going to be more influential,” Alemdar said. Erdogan congratulated Pashinyan on his re-election, while the Turkish foreign ministry urged Yerevan in a statement to embrace “bold reforms” – seen by many as a call for constitutional change. Cautious steps Pashinyan’s lack of decisive parliamentary support and uncertainty over a possible referendum mean Ankara’s role could be important in securing lasting peace, said Richard Giragosian, director of the Regional Studies Center think tank in Yerevan. “For Turkey this is a slow, gradual process of retaking the initiative with Armenia, away from Azerbaijan,” Giragosian said. “Because in many ways, at every round it's been the Azerbaijan factor that's the key determinant. And according to sources in Ankara, they only have a yellow light of caution from Azerbaijan – it's not a red light, but it's not yet a green light to proceed.” Reopening the Turkish-Armenian border would be welcomed by the European Union and Washington, as Ankara seeks to deepen its ties with both. But with Azerbaijan acting as a major investor and economic lifeline, Turkey is moving cautiously to avoid upsetting its powerful neighbour.

Turkey is expanding its military training programmes across Africa, with soldiers from Mali and Niger graduating from a special forces camp as Ankara seeks to deepen ties across the continent. The soldiers completed training this month at Turkey's special forces camp in Isparta. The approach, known as the "Somalia model" after Turkey's largest overseas base, has become central to Ankara's strategy in Africa. "The Somalia model is one of the Turkish military ideas to educate, train certain African states that are very much interested in military cooperation with Turkey," said Huseyin Bagci, an international relations professor at Ankara's Middle East Technical University. "Turkey has done it to Central Asian countries in the 90s, in the 2000s. So now the African is on the line, and this is the new development and is good for Turkey." Turkey has signed more than 20 military training cooperation deals across Africa in recent years. Turkey courts Libya's rival factions in bid to further Mediterranean ambitions Growing ties "Somalia and Libya are central where Turkey does have training bases," said Nebahat Tanriverdi Yasar, a defence expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. "But also, we are seeing growing ties with Sahelian countries, especially Niger, Mali, Nigeria." Turkey sees military training as a cost-effective way to increase its influence in Africa. "It is a relatively low-cost way to present itself in sensitive theaters, with fewer operational costs and risk of direct intervention. So in a way, those relations serve as a tool for defense diplomacy," Yasar said. Turkey has moved swiftly to capitalise on the vacuum left by France's retreating military and fading diplomatic sway in West Africa and the Sahel. Meanwhile, African nations increasingly view Turkey as a counterweight to the rising influence of Russia and China. Turkey expands military footprint in Somalia as regional rivalries intensify Libya's role Turkey's training of Libyan forces linked to rival administrations also serves European interests because Libya has become a crucial gateway for people smugglers heading into Europe, said Aya Burweilla, a Libya expert at the Athens-based Center for Hellenic and Mediterranean Studies. "Libya with an army that can secure its borders is good for Europe, too," Burweilla said. "Libya has two seas, one in the desert and one on the Mediterranean. And you need a properly organized army that can keep the border safe." Turkey's military training programmes are also helping the country's booming defence industry. "If you train them, they should use Turkish weapons; this is very normal. When you look at the export of Turkish arms to the world, you see mostly to African countries," said Bagci. Turkey's growing defence ties are helping to bring African military and political leaders to industry events in Turkey. "It is not easy to make business, of course, with African countries, with the military leaders there, it is not easy. But when you look at military fairs in Istanbul, you see how many African countries' military and political leaders visit," Bagci said. Turkey boosts Mali defence ties after separatist and jihadist attacks Defence links Turkish arms sales, such as military drones now found across Africa, often include extensive training, intelligence sharing and diplomatic engagement. Training junior officers in countries like Somalia, some destined to become future generals, could also help Turkey build long-term relationships, said Omar Mahmood, East Africa analyst at the International Crisis Group. "You invest in the up and coming of the Somali security force, and you'll have some sort of long-standing ties going forward," Mahmood said. "Some of them are trained in the Turkish language as well, so that creates these sorts of bonds. So, absolutely, I think that's part of their strategic plan. It kind of shows a longer-term vision as well."

In a bold move by Ankara, Turkey this week brought together Libya’s two rival militaries for international exercises. While firmly supporting the Tripoli-based regime, Turkey is now extending an olive branch to the Benghazi administration, aiming to steady Libya and broaden its sway across the region. For the first time, Libya’s two military forces participated internationally together under one flag. According to the Turkish defence ministry, 501 personnel from both Libyan armies joined Turkey’s Efes 2026 military exercises. “There needs to be one unified army in Libya, one unified military force,” said Libya expert Aya Burweila of the Athens-based Centre for Hellenic and Mediterranean Studies. “I think these joint exercises help with that. They help facilitate closer cooperation with both sides, and that can only be a good thing.” Libya has been split since 2014, with the Government of National Unity ruling the west from Tripoli and the Government of National Stability holding the east in Benghazi. While Ankara has long championed Tripoli, analyst Burweila suggests that May’s joint exercises signal a new Turkish push to engage with Benghazi. “This is a huge, practical pivot towards the east [by Turkey]. It has huge implications for Libya’s stability. Turkey’s position now is that it has good relations with both sides,” said Burweila. “It’s not just joint military exercises. There are business interests, there are sales of weapons and drones, and so forth.” Turkey and Italy boost cooperation in bid to shape Libya’s political future Energy reserves For Ankara, courting the Benghazi administration, led by military commander Khalifa Haftar, is all about expanding Turkey’s influence in the eastern Mediterranean, argues Jalel Harchaoui of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based defence think tank. Harchaoui said Ankara needs Haftar’s support to enforce a 2019 memorandum of understanding that Turkey signed with the Tripoli administration to create a joint exclusive economic zone in Libyan waters. “Now, if Ankara wants to enforce it, which it does, it needs to have the Haftar family on board,” Harchaoui explained. “The Haftar family can deliver on two very necessary things: the parliamentary ratification, because the parliament happens to be controlled by the Haftar family, and also the part of the coast that is involved in this arrangement is eastern Libya, not western Libya.” However, the Turkey-Libya exclusive economic zone, believed to have large untapped energy reserves, is strongly opposed by Greece and Cyprus, who claim it violates their territorial waters. Neighbouring Egypt and Israel have also voiced concerns. Haftar’s eastern Libyan government shares their reluctance. “Eastern Libya has very good relations with Egypt and has cordial relations with Greece as well. And this memorandum, at least from their side, violates their rights,” explained Libya analyst Burweila. She added: “I think what lots of Libyans feel is: 'this fight is not our fight. We don't want to be involved in this kind of dispute.' So while this is a big priority for Turkey, it is not a priority for Libyans, and I think everybody there would prefer to kick this can down the road.” Egypt and Turkey's closer ties spark hope for peace among Libya’s rival factions Carrot and stick Throughout 2025, Ankara wooed Haftar and his son Saddam, chief of staff of the Libyan National Army, but saw little progress. According to analyst Harchaoui, Turkey has since toughened its stance, zeroing in on Haftar’s late-year military backing of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Turkish-made combat drones have been pictured on airbases in southern Egypt, which like Turkey backs the Sudanese army in its fight against the paramilitary RSF. According to a New York Times investigation, they have been used for strikes in Sudan. “This was a new development,” said Harchaoui, “It was basically Turkey saying, 'I smiled for most of 2025, and you did nothing for me. And you will have seen two faces. You will have seen the carrot, obviously, but also the stick.'” In April, Turkey delivered a new batch of military drones to Haftar’s army, continuing this carrot-and-stick policy. The Turkish defence ministry says it aims to hold further joint military exercises with both Libyan armies. While Turkey is stepping up its efforts to stabilise Libya, its goal of securing joint control of a huge swathe of the eastern Mediterranean threatens to drag the country further into an increasingly bitter regional rivalry.

Ankara has voiced alarm at Cyprus’s announcement that France will deploy soldiers on the Mediterranean island. The move has fuelled Turkish fears of encirclement, as Cyprus and Greece continue to deepen defence ties with Turkey’s rival Israel. Turkish officials have strongly criticised France’s plan to send soldiers to Cyprus, warning it could escalate tensions. Cyprus has remained divided since 1974, when Turkey invaded following a coup backed by Greece. The north is governed by a Turkish Cypriot administration recognised only by Turkey. Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides stated that the French deployment is part of a Status of Forces Agreement to be signed in June. France increased its military support, sending forces to the area after Iranian missiles targeted the island. But Ankara sees the move as part of a growing rivalry with Paris. “Turkey and France are geopolitical rivals. They have been competing with each other in Africa and the eastern Mediterranean,” explains international relations professor Serhat Guvenc of Istanbul’s Kadir Has University. “France is inclined to view Turkey as a potential revisionist power, pursuing hegemonic aspirations in the region,” he said, adding that Cyprus is a small island and a concentration of military power without unified command could lead to unwanted escalation. Cyprus’s EU presidency: seeking resilience in a new world order Christodoulides downplayed Turkish concerns, stating that any French deployment would serve “humanitarian purposes". However, former Cypriot ambassador Euripides Evriviades argues that Turkey’s military presence is the primary security threat in Cyprus. “These things are happening because we feel very insecure – it is 40,000 Turkish troops on the island in an aggressive posture,” said Evriviades. “The insecurity on the island stems directly from the continued occupation and violations of human rights that come with any occupation." French backing Macron’s support for Cyprus echoes his strong backing of Greece. During a recent visit to Athens, he said there was “no room for doubt” about France’s military support for Greece against any threats, a statement widely interpreted as being aimed at Turkey. France’s increased support for Greece and Cyprus coincides with Athens and Nicosia strengthening security ties with Israel. Cyprus urges EU to agree plan for defence of member states ahead of summit “The Cyprus problem is no longer the Cyprus problem per se, but has become a part of the wider geopolitical rivalries in the region,” said Guvenc. Turkish-Israeli relations remain tense, with both sides viewing each other as a threat. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan warned that the alignment of Cyprus, Israel and Greece is an attempt to “encircle Turkey". Ankara fears that such a military alliance could be used to advance Greek and Cypriot claims over the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, where Turkey and Greece have multiple territorial disputes. “If they combine their military and naval capabilities, they may attempt to deny Turkey access to the Eastern Mediterranean. So this is a danger,” said Guvenc. Cycle of distrust The upcoming Washington summit involving Greece, Cyprus and Israel is likely to intensify Ankara’s concerns about isolation. Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, head of the German Marshall Fund office in Ankara, warns that the region is caught in a growing cycle of distrust, and any new military deployment to Cyprus is likely to prompt a reciprocal response. “Turkey could make new deployments, drones, even fighter jets,” he said. Turkey steps up as Europe's indispensable and uncomfortable defence partner Unluhisarcikli also cautions that renewed tensions over Cyprus are a dangerous distraction from the ongoing Russian threat. “At a time when the transatlantic community at large is facing much larger external threats, NATO allies should not be posturing against each other, and that's what we are seeing. This is unacceptable." “The risk of a real confrontation is very limited, but it will lead both sides to double down on their current positions,” he added. Turkey, which has the second-largest army in NATO, is viewed by some in the European Union as a potential answer to concerns about the United States’ commitment to Europe's defence amid the ongoing Russian threat. However, renewed tensions over Cyprus may undermine these expectations.

As radiation spread across Europe in April 1986, so did the truth about a political system built on silence. Four decades on, RFI spoke to history and politics professor Oleg Kobtzeff about how the Chernobyl nuclear disaster exposed the USSR's culture of secrecy, and was among the catalysts for its collapse. On 26 April, 1986, a reactor exploded at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, sending a radioactive cloud drifting across Europe. For days, the Soviet Union said nothing. But as radiation alarms sounded in Scandinavia and the truth seeped out, the disaster became something bigger than an industrial accident. It pulled back the curtain on a system built on secrecy – and, some argue, helped bring that system crashing down. Four decades on, the question still resonates: was Chernobyl the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union? Oleg Kobtzeff, associate professor of history and politics at the American University of Paris, says the scale of the disaster was understood almost immediately in Moscow. “You have a complete meltdown of the core of the nuclear plant. We quite often forget the incredibly heroic attempts of the local scientists and the firemen and other responders who managed to prevent the worst.” Those early interventions, he says, prevented an even greater catastrophe, one with potentially global consequences. “A lot of people sacrificed their lives to contain the meltdown." Hiding the endless horror of Chernobyl Culture of secrecy But while the severity of the situation was clear to those in power, their response followed a different script – one shaped by decades of Soviet political conditioning. “Secrecy was part of the political culture, and habits that had gone on for four generations,” said Kobtzeff. “It was unthinkable to be transparent.” From childhood, Soviet citizens were conditioned to see the outside world as hostile and to guard information accordingly. “You are taught that we are surrounded by enemies and spies and we must not disclose any vital information,” Kobtzeff explained. “So obviously there’s going to be about two, three weeks when the authorities keep it under the lid.” But when fallout was detected abroad – in Sweden, Norway and Finland, even parts of France – silence became impossible, particularly at a time when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was seeking to ease Cold War tensions. According to Kobtzeff, Chernobyl was an opportunity. “It became a pretext for Gorbachev and the liberals in the Kremlin to begin the reforms that they had already been thinking about for years." A new transparency What followed marked a sharp break with the past, as Gorbachev faced journalists and answered unscripted questions about the disaster. “He dares to respond candidly,” said Kobtzeff. “Conferences of this sort had never happened since the Bolshevik Revolution.” This shift was immediate and widely understood. “It was seen as an absolute revolution. People understood what was happening even before the word 'perestroika' was pronounced.” But this greater openness came at a cost. By exposing industrial mismanagement, environmental damage and decades of secrecy, the reforms also undermined the legitimacy of the Soviet system. “The tragedy of Gorbachev… is that instead of being seen as a reformer, he’s seen as the last man standing of a completely flawed system,” said Kobtzeff. West pays tribute to Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader who ended Cold War The debate over Chernobyl’s role in the Soviet collapse continues. Some argue the system was already in decline, weakened by economic stagnation and political rigidity. Kobtzeff acknowledges that view, describing the disaster as part of an existing broader malaise. But he is clear on one point – Chernobyl acted as a catalyst. “Whether it’s a symptom or whether it’s completely part of the mechanisms… I don't think it really matters,” he argued. “The important thing to understand is that everything is related.” A grim legacy That interpretation, Kobtzeff said, was shared at the highest levels of Soviet power. “They realised that Chernobyl was becoming a catalyst for everything that was wrong with the system,” he said, citing personal accounts from former Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze. “They discussed this in government meetings – that it revealed what needed to be reformed if you wanted to save the system.” Forty years on, the physical legacy of the disaster remains grim. In parts of Belarus and northern Ukraine, communities still live with elevated rates of cancer, thyroid disease and birth defects. A vast exclusion zone surrounds the reactor, a place that is strangely both abandoned and revived, with wild animals thriving there, undisturbed by humans. “You have an entire zone near Chernobyl which is completely cordoned off,” Kobtzeff said. “It’s like another planet.” He added that the site remains a long-term challenge: “We’ve got thousands of years of work to continue containing this.” In 1986, the Soviet Union too tried to contain the fallout – but the truth was harder to hide.

Three decades after war reduced the city of Aghdam to ruins, deminers and returning residents are laying the groundwork for its revival. The destruction of the city of Aghdam in the contested enclave of Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh is among the most visible signs of the decades-long conflict between Azerbaijanis and ethnic Armenians. Now efforts are underway to bring the city back to life. A loud explosion breaks the winter silence as the latest disposal of collected mines takes place. ‘We’ve cleared three hundred thousand square meters and found more than ten thousand landmines,” proudly declares Elnur Gasimov, head of mine clearance operations in Aghdam. The dangerous work, done in freezing weather, carries significant risk. Gasimov's right hand is missing several fingers. “We have more than 10 deminers who have lost their legs, and we lost two deminers during the explosive disposal,” Gasimov told RFI. He explains that, with Aghdam once close to the frontline in fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces, the area was among the heaviest mined during the conflict. Azerbaijan lifts Armenia border restrictions, but hurdles to peace remain Clearing the mines Nagorno-Karabakh was historically home to a predominantly ethnic Armenian population. In 1993, they broke away from Azerbaijan, declaring a breakaway Republic of Artsakh. But in 2023, during a lightning war, Azerbaijani forces recaptured the region. With access to Aghdam still tightly controlled since the end of the fighting, RFI joined a small group of journalists on a trip organised by the Azerbaijani authorities. The city of Aghdam was once home to 40,000 people, predominantly Azerbaijani. Long a cultural centre of the region, the city was also home to Azerbaijan’s most famous football club – Qarabag – which now plays out of the capital, Baku. Today, not a single house remains standing – all were razed to the ground, and even the trees didn't escape the conflict. It’s a barren wasteland. The historical Juma mosque was one of the few buildings that survived, partially intact, and was used as a shelter for farm animals by ethnic Armenians. Imam Mehman Nesirov, 45, is the proud custodian of the fully restored mosque, where up to 100 worshippers now attend Friday prayers as life slowly returns to the city. Nesirov fled Aghdam in 1993 as a child: “We were forced to leave because of the sound of fighting, which was getting closer and closer. Everyone was terrified and panicked." Nesirov explained to RFI that he and his family spent the first years of their lives living in a railway wagon. “I will never forget those years. We always prayed to God that one day we could return and pray at this mosque,” said Nesirov. “We can't put into words how we feel that dream we had as a child, a teenager, and an adult is finally realised.” Azerbaijan must allow 'safe' return to Nagorno-Karabakh: UN court Returns and ruptures Around a thousand people have returned to Aghdam, all housed in new state-built accommodation, as the city itself remains uninhabitable. While Azerbaijanis are slowly returning, ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh have now become refugees following the victory of Azeri forces in 2023. “What we saw within 24 hours was the forced expulsion of the remaining 110,000 Armenians from their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh,” said Richard Giragosiyan, director of the Regional Studies Center, a Yerevan think tank. “They were leaving behind whole homes, personal possessions, family graves, and coming to Armenia, which was more of a foreign country than many people understand,” added Giragosiyan. However, Giragosiyan claims that Azerbaijan’s forces' success in Nagorno-Karabakh opened the door to a “diplomatic breakthrough,” with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan committing themselves to improving relations in the aftermath of the conflict. Baku in January opened its border to allow oil and grain from Kazakhstan to reach Armenia, which is important for Yerevan as it tries to rely less on Russia and move closer to Europe. In Aghdam’s newest hotel, manager Aykhan Jabbarov welcomes rapprochement efforts between Yerevan and Baku. Jabbarov, a veteran of the last Nagorno-Karabakh war whose family fled Aghdam thirty years ago, looks forward to a time when Azerbaijanis and Armenians can again live together in the city. “If we look to history, we lived together before now, every leader talks about peace … We have to build a good relationship. It will help both countries' economy, people’s social life and the regional economy, everything.” However, diplomatic efforts to restore relations and normalise Armenian-Azerbaijani ties still have plenty of work ahead. With repercussions of the past never far away, Ruben Vardanyan, a leading member of the breakaway Armenian administration captured by Azeri forces, was convicted this week of war crimes and sentenced to 20 years in jail by an Azerbaijani court.