Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan indicated that a mix of internal pressures and international actors are working against a lasting peace settlement for the conflicts involving Yerevan and Baku. The remarks were reported by the Russian news agency TASS, reflecting a broader pattern of warnings from regional leaders about obstructive forces within and beyond the two nations. In a dialogue aimed at reducing tensions, Pashinyan emphasized the goal of a peace framework in which war would be rendered impossible, while noting that certain responses to Azerbaijan’s proposals can create the impression that there is an intent to legitimize future armed conflict rather than deter it. The message underscores a preference for concrete, verifiable guarantees that prevent aggression and stabilize the region, aligning with the interests of observers and citizens in North America who track Georgia9; the South Caucasus region.
In recent public statements, Pashinyan suggested that Yerevan is prepared to sign a treaty that includes mutual arms control provisions, highlighting a path toward transparency and verification that could reduce mistrust. This stance appears to be part of a wider effort to secure regional security arrangements while avoiding one-sided concessions that could empower future hostilities. The Armenian leadership appears to view arms control as a confidence-building measure that would support longer-term peace by creating verifiable constraints on military activities and increasing predictability for neighbouring states and international stakeholders, including North American partners with strategic interests in stability in the Southern Caucasus.
On January 4, Hikmet Hajiyev, the Vice President of Azerbaijan and head of the Presidential Foreign Policy Administration, stated that significant progress had been made in drafting the peace treaty text between Baku and Yerevan. He noted that while progress is evident, numerous issues remain unresolved and described the overall agenda as positive. The comments reflect Azerbaijan’s ongoing commitment to reaching an agreement that can deliver tangible stability while balancing its security concerns with assurances that neighboring regions will not slide back into conflict. For audiences in Canada and the United States, this exchange signals a move toward a formalized framework that could invite broader international engagement and monitoring to ensure compliance and durable peace.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin observed that the timing and venue of any peace treaty signing would be decided by Azerbaijan and Armenia themselves, indicating a preference for sovereign control over the negotiating process. This stance aligns with a pattern seen in regional diplomacy where the principal parties determine milestones while external partners offer support, analysis, and impact assessments. Observers in North America note that such an approach can help manage expectations among international allies and assess potential security guarantees that could influence regional stability and economic development across the wider Black Sea and Caspian corridors.
Earlier, Pashinyan underwent a leadership reorganization, appointing Armen Abazyan to a top national security post, signaling structural adjustments in Armenia’s approach to national defense and policy coordination during this sensitive period. This change may affect how Armenia aligns its domestic security priorities with the terms of any future peace accord and how it coordinates with international partners who seek to support sustainable peace through robust governance, rule of law, and verification mechanisms. For American and Canadian readers, such shifts matter because they shape the likelihood of a durable agreement that can facilitate regional investment, humanitarian relief, and long-term security cooperation across the Caucasus and adjacent regions.