Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

From Sochi to Moscow: is Russia derailing the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process again?

31 May 2023
Vasif Huseynov

We might again have returned to a game of Russia trying to derail the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process after progress is made in Western-mediated negotiations, writes Vasif Huseynov in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "The Moscow summit on 25 May, in a similar vein to the Sochi summit of last year, was an attempt by the Russian side to ensure its mediating role between the two Caucasian republics as well as to make sure that no treaty was going to be signed without consideration of Russia’s regional interests," he writes.

On 25 May, Russia managed to bring the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Ilham Aliyev, respectively, together for a trilateral meeting with President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Eurasian Economic Union summit in Moscow. 

This meeting came on the heels of the increased dynamics in the peace talks between the two South Caucasian republics mediated by the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA). In the aftermath of the marathon talks between the foreign ministers in Washington in early May, the political leaders of the two countries met in Brussels on 14 May, reactivating the EU-mediated trilateral meetings.

Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders had earlier this year met in another meeting mediated by the United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in February. It has been widely reported by both the officials of the Caucasian republics and the Western mediators that the two countries were close to a final peace deal. The latest Brussels summit (14 May), in particular, appeared to be a precursor to a peace summit as the Armenian leader unequivocally and verbally recognized the Karabakh region as part of Azerbaijan. 

These dynamics in the peace process were reminiscent of the developments between Baku and Yerevan in the last quarter of 2022. In a similar way, but less clearly, to the outcomes of the Brussels summit (May 14), Armenia and Azerbaijan had recognized each other’s territorial integrity in their Prague summit mediated by President Charles Michel of the European Union Council and President Emmanuel Macron of France on 6 October 2022. Optimism was again high in the region following this summit. Both Baku and Yerevan officials expressed their anticipation for the signing of a comprehensive peace treaty by the end of 2022.

Russia is displeased with Western-mediated peace talks and initiatives between Yerevan and Baku

Amidst this optimism, the Russian leader convened the next trilateral summit with his counterparts from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Organized for the first time since the last Moscow-mediated summit on 26 November 2021, the trilateral summit on 31 October 2022 in Sochi fell short of bringing about any major breakthrough in the negotiations. Most significantly, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan reaffirmed their agreement reached earlier in the Prague summit about mutual recognition of each other’s territorial integrity, this time in the presence of President Putin. The Sochi meeting was largely seen in the region as Russia’s attempt to make sure that the two countries would not sign any major document that would be against Moscow’s regional interests.

Indeed, a couple of days before this summit, at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not conceal his displeasure with the Western-mediated peace talks and initiatives between Yerevan and Baku. Describing the peace treaty draft discussed in the Western-mediated track of negotiations as the “Washington version,” he said, “as far as I understand, [this version] envisages the recognition of the sovereignty of Azerbaijan over Karabakh in general”. This settlement model appeared to be at odds with Russia’s plans which envisaged the postponement of the Karabakh issue to the future and as such preparing grounds for an extension of its peacekeeping mission in Karabakh. 

The peace talks between Baku and Yerevan faced a gloomy aftermath following the Sochi summit. The plans for another EU-mediated summit also ended in failure, dashing hopes of signing the peace agreement by the end of 2022.

Was the 25 May summit in Moscow an attempt to derail plans for a peace treaty?

We might again have returned to this game against the background of latest developments in the Western-mediated track of peace negotiations and again widely-shared expectations that a peace treaty would be signed soon. The Moscow summit on 25 May, in a similar vein to the Sochi summit of last year, was an attempt by the Russian side to ensure its mediating role between the two Caucasian republics as well as to make sure that no treaty was going to be signed without consideration of Russia’s regional interests. On 19 May, in a separate meeting with Armenia’s foreign minister on the sidelines of the Moscow-mediated ministerial meeting between Baku and Yerevan, Russia’s Sergei Lavrov clearly expressed these views, stressing that “Russia plays a historical role in this region and has major interests at stake. I am convinced that our allies are aware of that.” 

This raises the question as to whether the Moscow summit on 25 May served as yet another impediment to the plans for the peace treaty. This question is still legitimate, although President Putin, after the trilateral summit, said that despite difficulties, he felt Azerbaijan and Armenia were moving towards a settlement to their decades-old conflict. Regardless, it remains an indisputable fact that while Baku and Yerevan try to reach a peace agreement via Western mediation, both capitals are making some formal gestures to calm Russian anxiety. Few in the region would argue with Lavrov on his conviction that Russia has major interests at stake in the region as well as in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. 

 

source: Dr Vasif Huseynov, is a Senior Advisor at the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) and Adjunct Lecturer at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan.
photo: Prime Minister of Armenia
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

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
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit
Trending

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

31 October 2026
António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

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