Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains out of reach for now, a situation underscored by recent remarks reported by RIA News, which reference Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. In his assessment, the current geopolitical climate makes a bilateral settlement appear distant, if not unattainable, as competing narratives and security concerns dominate the discourse on both sides of the border. The Armenian leadership emphasizes that any path to stability must address fundamental security guarantees and regional dynamics that have repeatedly tested written commitments and diplomatic rhetoric alike. RIA News highlights the prime minister’s ongoing emphasis on the fragility of trust in the peace process and the corresponding risk of renewed confrontation if provocation or miscalculation continues to shape strategic decisions. The detailed reporting from this source helps frame the discussion around how Armenia evaluates contemporary moves by Azerbaijan and how those moves influence the likelihood of a new round of hostilities.
According to Pashinyan, Azerbaijan’s public statements are not merely political posturing but indicators of an intent to strike again against Armenia. He noted that the government has repeatedly called for independent investigations into recent assaults, yet Azerbaijan reportedly uses these events to advance its own narrative and justify further aggression. The Armenian side believes that these patterns point to a deliberate strategy aimed at destabilizing the region and eroding confidence in any forthcoming negotiations. This reading of the situation is rooted in a pattern of rhetoric, military activity, and international messaging that makes a constructive dialogue more challenging in the short term. Pashinyan stressed that without credible assurances and a verifiable de-escalation framework, Armenia will remain cautious and vigilant about new threats, especially given Azerbaijan’s stated goals and public discourse on security and sovereignty.
Pashinyan also addressed the topic during a broadcast on a major French television channel, articulating why peace with Baku cannot be achieved under the current conditions. He argued that the term Western Azerbaijan, used by some Azerbaijani voices, complicates the atmosphere for dialogue and signals a broader rejection of Armenia’s territorial and political status in the eyes of certain regional actors. This framing, according to the Armenian prime minister, creates a climate in which compromise is difficult to sustain and where external influence can skew the incentives toward escalation rather than negotiation. The message underscores the importance of mutual recognition of sovereign rights and a shared commitment to peaceful dispute resolution, even as the strategic landscape in the South Caucasus remains deeply unsettled and subject to external pressure and regional rivalries.
Earlier, Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned remarks attributed to French President Emmanuel Macron during a joint press conference with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on February 21. The ministry characterized Macron’s statements about the security and rights of Armenians as inappropriate within the context of ongoing regional negotiations. The response illustrates how international diplomacy can become entangled in the sensitivities of domestic politics and national narratives. For many observers, such clashes over language and framing reflect the broader challenge of maintaining a neutral and productive space for mediation when major powers speak on behalf of or about the parties involved in the conflict. The exchange also signals that diplomatic channels will need careful management to preserve leverage for dialogue without inflaming competing national sentiments. Attribution for these developments can be traced to official statements released by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry and subsequent analyses from regional watchers who monitor the interplay of diplomacy and security in the South Caucasus.
Previously, Pashinyan provided clarifications about the details of negotiations with Macron, outlining the Armenian perspective on the process and the conditions required for progress. In explaining Armenia’s priorities, he emphasized the essential elements of a sustainable agreement: clear security guarantees, mutual recognition of legitimate rights, and a timetable for de-escalation that all parties can monitor. This articulation reflects a broader effort to balance firmness on core issues with a willingness to engage in multilateral talks that include partners and observers who can help maintain accountability. The emphasis on transparency and verifiable commitments is a common thread in numerous regional discussions, where the risk of misinterpretation and stalled progress is high. The exchanges around Macron’s involvement illustrate how high-level diplomacy can influence on-the-ground dynamics, shaping the expectations of both governments and their publics in ways that either advance or hinder the peace process.