Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: Armenians and Azerbaijanis are carving a new South Caucasus

16 February 2026
Dennis Sammut

For many years, the international community was telling the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to prepare their populations for peace. Instead, they prepared them for war, which eventually came in 2020, followed by a period of uncertainty. In the last year the two sides turned the page. In March 2025 they agreed the elements of a peace agreement. On 8 August, at a historic meeting in the White House, this agreement was initialed. Since then, the two sides have taken huge, unprecedented steps to achieve peace and reconciliation.

On 13 February, twenty Azerbaijani civil society experts walked across the border with Armenia, presented their passports at an Armenian border checkpoint and entered Armenia, to be welcomed by 20 Armenian counterparts, with who they spent the next two days discussing future regional peace and co-operation.

The symbolism and importance of this event is huge. Even if you accept that this was a tightly choreographed affair, managed by the two governments, its importance is unquestionable.

There will now be a “return” event. The 20 Armenians involved in the process will go to Azerbaijan.

Peace Bridge

The arrival of the large Azerbaijani group in Armenia was in the framework of the “Peace Bridge”, which started taking shape in October of last year. This has two characteristics, which make it special, relevant and ground breaking.

The first is that the initiative not only has government backing, but has two important “patrons” – presidential adviser in Azerbaijan, Hikmet Haciyev; and Armenian National Security Council Secretary, Armen Grigoryan. These two men did most of the heavy lifting behind the scenes to get the peace process on the right track. So there is a bit of a haze between track 1 and track 2, but in this case it is all for the better.

The second important element, is that this is an all-local initiative. There is no foreign funding; no external NGO, or any other outside involvement. This is hugely significant and important.

One also needs to commend the transparency of the process. The names of those participating on both sides were published.

“Mission accomplished”, or a lot of it is. Now it is time to move on!

I have been involved in Armenia-Azerbaijan relations for more than three decades: we supported dialogue between MPs, officials, journalists, young people, civil society etc etc. Most of the time it has been a thankless task, and we were attacked and criticized often by both sides, but we persisted. We pushed confidence-building measures, even though some were dead against them.

On 13 February 2026, when the Azerbaijani group from “Peace Bridge” walked confidently across the border into Armenia, I could say that our job, as a conflict-resolution organization, was done.

There is no conflict anymore between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenians and Azerbaijanis, at official level, and at civil society level, are talking directly to each other without intermediaries.

This is something to be celebrated.

That part of our work is done, and we should be happy and satisfied. We contributed as much as anyone so that the sides could reach this point. Now its time to move on.

Of course success brings responsibility. Those involved in “Peace Bridge”, and those behind them, are now the key movers amongst the populations at large of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, where there remains a lot of mistrust and skepticism, and where there are still many spoilers, many backed by Russia. So “Peace bridge” has a lot of work ahead.

We enter a new era.

LINKS Europe has always been more than a conflict resolution organization. My team, and I personally, remain committed to the Caucasus region, and its future. Our work will adapt to the new reality as the region stops being a war-thorn area on the periphery of Russia, and becomes a hub between Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. It is an exciting moment, and we are glad we are also part of the conversation in this new South Caucasus.  

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS Europe Foundation, and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu.

photo: 20 Azerbaijanis queuing to have their passports stamped at an Armenian checkpoint, as they arrive for a meeting of Peace Bridge on 13 February 2026. (Image courtesy of ARMENPRESS, Yerevan)

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
Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist
Trending

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

11 November 2026
Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

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