Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Baku and Yerevan give different spins to St Petersburg Summit

Baku and Yerevan give different spins to St Petersburg Summit

23 June 2016

Only days after the meeting in St Petersburg between the President of Russia and the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan senior officials from both sides gave very different spins to what has been agreed at that meeting. The meeting which took place on Monday (20 June) was initially welcomed by both sides, but now Armenia and Azerbaijan are raising questions as to what was actually agreed.

The only formal communication from the summit was a short joint statement issued immediately afterwards which says:

"At the invitation of the President of the Russian Federation, the Presidents of the Republic of Armenia, Russian Federation and Republic of Azerbaijan met in Saint Petersburg on June 20, 2016 and discussed issues pertaining to the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh problem.

The Presidents of the Republic of Armenia and Republic of Azerbaijan reiterated agreements reached at the May 16 Armenian-Azerbaijani Summit in Vienna aimed at the stabilization of the situation in the conflict area and creation of an atmosphere conducive for moving the peace process forward. Towards that end, they agreed in particular to increase the number of international observers. They expressed satisfaction with the fact that recently the ceasefire regime at the line of contact has been upheld. There took place a substantial exchanged of opinions regarding the pivotal issues related to the settlement. The Heads of State took note of mutual understanding on a number of issues the resolution of which will allow to create condition for progress in the settlement of the NK issue. The Presidents mentioned the importance of their regular meetings and reached an agreement to continue them in the same format in addition to the activities carried out by the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.
The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group were invited to take part in the final part of the meeting in Saint Petersburg."

The day after the meeting in St Petersburg the Deputy head of the Azerbaijan presidential Administration, Novruz Mammadov gave an interview to the Azerbaijani TV station ANS in which he said that at St Petersburg the sides had agreed a step-by-step approach to the resolution of the Karabakh conflict - the first step being the Armenian withdrawal from five Azerbaijani districts around Nagorno-Karabakh, then the release of two more territories, creating a corridor, and finally defining the status of Karabakh.

Novruz Mamedov put the onus for the success of the plan on Armenia saying it was up to Armenia to ensure that it abided by the agreement. This brought a quick sharp reaction from the Armenian side. As reported on the Ministry website, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian,  said in answer to a journalist question that "Novruz Mammadov, has never participated in any negotiations and the Summit in Saint Petersburg was no exclusion. At the latest meeting, he attended the working lunch only, during which exclusively the creation of a mechanism of investigation of cease-fire violations and expansion of capabilities of the team of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office were discussed.

Regarding the package solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, first of all, as it was stated on numerous occasions - it should be based on the recognition by Azerbaijan of the right of Nagorno-Karabakh people to self-determination and the realization of that right.

Not a single agreement on the settlement of the issue was reached at the Summit in St. Petersburg.

At this stage, Azerbaijan should unconditionally implement the agreements reached and reaffirmed in Vienna and St. Petersburg - first and foremost, settlement of the issue exclusively through peaceful means, maintenance of 1994-1995 trilateral cease-fire agreements which have no time limitations, creation of mechanism of investigation of cease-fire violations, as well as expansion of capabilities of the team of OSCE Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. All this will enable the creation of appropriate conditions for resumption of negotiations on the settlement of the issue," Nalbandian concluded.

Meanwhile as the sharp diplomatic exchange was taking place, Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan visited Nagorno-Karabakh, where he had talks with the leadership of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Repiublic and visited the line of contact.

Despite all this Russian propagandists in Moscow were trying hard over the last days to describe the St Petersburg summit as a major breakthrough and president Putin as a peacemaker who alone could solve the Karabakh conflict.

The Azerbaijani news agency APA quoted Sergei Markov, the Director of the Russian Institute of Political Studies as saying that "serious progress towards the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was achieved at the St. Petersburg meeting". According to him, this meeting "was important for the decisions to be passed in the near future".

APA further quoted Markov as saying that "The presidents discussed the Kazan formula that envisages firstly the return of 5 adjacent districts to Nagorno-Karabakh, then 2 districts to Azerbaijan except the corridor to Armenia. The sides also mulled the possible deployment of peacekeepers in the territory between Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent districts. The deployment of peacekeepers was offered as a guarantee against a military intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh," the political analyst added.

To the question put by the APA journalist if the Kazan formula was discussed at the trilateral meeting, then why do the meeting participants, and other officials say nothing about its details and what was agreed, Markov replied, "The details of the meeting are not disclosed. This shows that the trilateral meeting held in St. Petersburg had actually a real content. When a significant decision is adopted, the mediators keep it secret. Yesterday's meeting is an example of it. I believe that a final agreement will be signed after two or three such meetings. For the present, meetings are aimed at eliminating disagreements on the points of the Kazan formula. These disagreements are related to issues such as providing Armenia one or two corridors, the return of 5-6 or 7 districts at the initial stage, the need for a referendum in the future and the reflection of the final agreement in the UN resolutions. For example, Baku insists on the final agreement being included in the UN Security Council resolutions which demand the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories and support the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan. However, Yerevan is against it. I think such controversial points will be solved at the next meetings," the political analyst concluded.

From all this one can conclude that many things were discussed in St Petersburg, but it seems that not so much was agreed.

source: commonspace.eu with agencies.

Photo: President Putin with the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan (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
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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