Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Aliev and Sargsyan speak on NK ahead of St Petersburg meeting with Putin

Aliev and Sargsyan speak on NK ahead of St Petersburg meeting with Putin

19 June 2016

President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan and president Serzh Sargsyan of Armenia have both spoken about the current state of negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ahead of their meeting on Monday in St Petersburg with Russian President Vladimir Putin

APA news agency reports from Baku that President Aliev addressed the issue whilst speaking at an Iftar ceremony marking the Holy Muslim month of Ramadan hosted by the Chairman of the Board of Caucasus Muslims Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazade on Friday, (17 June). Aliev refereed to the fighting that took place in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone in April and said that it was "a signal to the mediators and to the world community that it is not a frozen conflict". The Azerbaijani president added, "if someone believes that we will continue to negotiate meaninglessly in the next twenty years, he is mistaken. We do not intend to conduct negotiations meaninglessly. We will not negotiate for the sake of imitation. We expect immediately and unconditionally to begin meaningful and substantive talks. In this case, can expect a peaceful solution to the issue". 

President Aliev said that in May there was a meeting in Vienna and that this will be followed up next week in Saint Petersburg. "We hope that this issue can and must find a solution through peaceful means. To achieve this, Armenia should abandon its aggressive policy and liberate our lands", the President said.

In the meantime the Armenian newspaper Hraparak, quoted by news.am, reported that Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan spoke about the St Petersburg meeting when addressing members of his ruling Republican Party last week.  The newspaper said that president Sargsyan described the St Petersburg meeting as "a continuation of the Vienna meeting" that will focus on discussions about the implementation of what has been agreed in Vienna.  The President said that under discussion shall be the matter of installation of an investigative mechanism in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone.  Hraparak quoted president Sargsyan as saying, "The ball is in Azerbaijan's court," adding that no document will be signed in Saint Petersburg, [and that] the negotiations will be reset, so that next time they would move forward from that point.

In the meantime it is as yet unclear what role if any will the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair have in the St Petersburg meeting. Earlier media reports in Russia and Azerbaijan, based on a news story disseminated by the Russian News Agency TASS, suggested that the OSCE will have no role in the meeting. However later, Natacha Rajakovic, Acting spokesperson of the OSCE in Vienna wrote on the commonspace.eu facebook page that her comments to the Tass News Agency had been misrepresented. "I NEVER said that the OSCE will not participate in the meeting. I said to Mr. Konstantin Pribytkov of TASS that I could not give him information about the date or modalities of the meeting, or comment on it, as the OSCE is not organizing it. That is all I said, not one word more".

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment:

"One should not have high expectations from the St Petersburg meeting. The Russian side is trying to maintain the initiative, and to continue playing the game that it has played around the Karabakh conflict for twenty-five years. On the one hand it projects itself as a partner of the international community and working in harmony with the other two co-Chair of the Minsk Group - France and the United States. On the other hand Russia has consistently maintained a strategy of separate diplomatic initiatives quite distinct and quite detached from the Minsk process. Some analysts consider that this Russian ambiguity has been one of the reasons why the work of the Minsk Process has so far failed to yield any results. This week in St Petersburg Russian president Putin will once more project himself as a peacemaker. But people in both Armenia and Azerbaijan know full well that it is Russia that has fuelled the conflict by flooding the region with the latest military equipment.

It is also clear from their comments ahead of the summit that president Aliev and president Sargsyan are going to St Petersburg with very different expectations. The Russians will have to come up with some rather ingenious wording if they are to get the sides to agree to any common statement at the end of the talks. However, notwithstanding all this, it is a positive step that the presidents continue to meet and continue to reaffirm their support for a peaceful solution to the conflict."

Source: commonspace.eu with APA and news.am

Photo: President Aliev of Azerbaijan flanked by leaders of the Muslim, jewish and Christian communities of Azerbaijan at an Iftar ceremony held on 17 June 2016. (Picture courtesy of the press service of the President of Azerbaijan.)

 

 

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut