In an unexpected turn during the BRICS summit held in Kazan, the Armenian Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, and the Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, convened for a discussion that spanned over an hour. This meeting, shrouded in secrecy prior to its occurrence, has sparked considerable intrigue and speculation regarding its implications for future Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.
Post-discussion, the press office of the Armenian government conveyed that the leaders had engaged in dialogue focused on the advancement of their bilateral peace agenda. This agenda prominently featured discussions on a peace treaty, as well as the delimitation and demarcation of borders, alongside a plethora of mutual concerns. Notably, the official communication conspicuously omitted any reference to the pressing issue of unblocking regional transport and communications routes—an element both leaders had notably emphasized in their Kazan addresses.
Additionally, the statement revealed that Pashinyan and Aliyev had instructed their foreign ministers to persist in bilateral negotiations concerning the Peace Agreement and the Establishment of Interstate Relations, aiming for a swift conclusion of these discussions.
According to political analyst Lilit Dallakyan, this meeting holds substantial significance for Moscow. It underscores a message to Western powers: the situation remains under Russian influence. Aliyev’s frequent assertions echoing Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov’s declaration—that peace in the South Caucasus hinges on Russian involvement—further accentuates this sentiment. Dallakyan argues that despite prevailing negative views among the Armenian populace towards Moscow, stemming from the tumultuous events following the 2020 44-day war, Armenia continues to rely on Russia when navigating its geopolitical challenges.
However, the details emerging immediately after the Pashinyan-Aliyev meeting provided little in the way of concrete agreements. As this article was being penned, reports confirmed that both presidents had endorsed a framework for joint border delimitation efforts, previously ratified by the Armenian parliament.
During the summit, Pashinyan sought to reassure attendees by addressing concerns surrounding the Armenian Constitution. He asserted that recent rulings by Armenia’s Constitutional Court alleviated fears that the constitution might harbor any territorial claims against Azerbaijan. He firmly refuted any insinuations to the contrary, deeming them “baseless and illegitimate.”
Conversely, the Azerbaijani position has frequently positioned complaints regarding Armenia’s constitution as central to the difficulties faced in formalizing a peace agreement. Despite these claims, Armenian officials maintain that the language within their constitution does not substantiate any territorial disputes and that the constitution’s references to historical declarations should not be misconstrued as ambitions of encroachment.
In parallel, Aliyev emphasized Azerbaijan’s emerging role as a pivotal transportation and logistics hub in Eurasia, promoting his nation’s strategic geographical advantages and infrastructural developments. He stated that the East-West and North-South corridors traverse Azerbaijan’s territory, asserting operational success in these routes.
In response, Pashinyan reaffirmed Armenia’s commitment to serving as a connecting hub between East and West, advocating for the “Crossroads of Peace” initiative. This proposal outlines a vision for a streamlined transport link between various critical regions, showcasing Armenia’s potential as a facilitator of regional connectivity.
In reflecting on this bilateral dialogue, Lilit Dallakyan voiced skepticism. She characterized the meeting as largely symbolic, expressing that, despite Azerbaijan’s facade of desiring peace, the current regime remains entrenched in its demands and unwillingness to compromise. The rhetoric surrounding recent initiatives, including the establishment of a “Western Azerbaijan return group,” has cast doubt on the genuineness of Azerbaijan’s peace intentions, further complicating the possibility of a reciprocal agreement.
Dallakyan’s analysis suggests that without substantial pressure from global powers, particularly the United States, Azerbaijan is disinclined to pursue peace earnestly. She posits that Aliyev is politically astute and will ultimately align with peace efforts only when he perceives no viable alternative.
As geopolitical currents shift, the ramifications of this Kazan meeting and the interplay of regional dynamics will continue to unfold—an evolving narrative punctuated by complexity and strategic negotiations.
