Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Analysis

"At this point a meeting between the Presidents will only happen if the Russians push enough for it" - Dennis Sammut

3 December 2016
Dennis Sammut

The Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research), Dennis Sammut spoke to the Azerbaijan news portal 1news.az about the chances of war and peace in Karabakh. We publish the full text of the interview.

What do you expect from the meeting in Hamburg? Would it mean any positive or negative step in NK process or just another expressing of commitments?

2016 has been a rather eventful year in the context of the Karabakh conflict and conflict settlement process. First there was a sharp escalation of violence on the line of contact leading to the April events. This was followed by intensive diplomatic dialogue, including two meetings between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Vienna and St Petersburg. Russia was particularly active this year, pushing the so called "Lavrov ideas". On the other hand, Germany had the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2016 and German diplomacy also tried to explore some new approaches to resolving the conflict.

As usual, the Foreign Ministers of the 57 member states of the OSCE will meet in the last month of the year, this time in Hamburg, to review the overall security situation in the OSCE area. It is expected that the foreign ministers of the three Minsk group co-chair countries will meet with the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan on the margins of the OSCE Ministerial in a 3 + 2 format. Whilst the format is agreed there is still not much optimism that the substance of these discussions can lead to a breakthrough in the negotiations. At best in Hamburg we can expect some follow up on what has already been agreed in Vienna and St Petersburg, and it will become clear if another meeting between the two presidents is possible in the near future. At this point I feel a meeting between the Presidents will only happen if the Russians push enough for it.

In a recent analytical piece on CommonSpace.eu you write that there are all the conditions for another violent flare-up in Nagorno Karabakh, even larger than the war in April. Please, shortly describe what makes you think so, and what can prevent that kind of scenario?  

The line of contact between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone is presently one of the hottest spots in Europe, with high risk of escalating violence. Both sides have the means to inflict heavy blows on the other using modern weaponary that they have recently acquired at great expense. In the absence of a meaningful peace process the chance of an upsurge in violence is at the moment very high. There are frustrations on both sides with the current status quo, and both sides may see some advantage in conducting a lightning military strike, although the danger this will spiral into bigger hostilities is evident to everyone.

The sides therefore need to push ahead with the negotiations in order to try to find a lasting and peaceful solution. However I feel that for this to happen there needs to be a new approach, both by the mediators, as well as by the sides in the conflict. This requires a change in the dynamic of the peace process, including formalizing it with a fixed time table, widening the circle of those involved in the negotiations to bring the discussions to a more practical level, an intensification of people to people contacts in order to prepare public opinion, and an intelligent and time tabled programme of military and civilian confidence building measures running in tandem with the negotiations. There are some risks in implementing such an approach, but the risk of doing nothing is even higher.

Do you link any hopes in NK peace process with the new figure at the position of the President of the United States? 

I do not see the new US administration taking a position on the Karabakh issue that is very different from the current one. What remains to be seen is whether the Trump White House will want to engage more with the Caucasus region, or less. In any case it will take some time - perhaps one or two years - until such policies come into play, and the region does not have the luxury to wait

source: commonspace.eu. This is the full text of the interview of Dennis Sammut with 1 news.az on 1 December 2016. A shortened version of the interview in Russian) was published by 1 news.az on 2 december 2016. You can read it here.

photo: The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan at one of their earlier meetings (archive picture)

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