Peace Path for the Armenia-Azerbaijan Border and Nagorno-Karabakh
The border delimitation issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan can progress through a formal peace agreement. This perspective, as conveyed by a news agency, centers on the possibility of advancing talks while the peace framework is being built. A spokesperson connected to the Armenian Parliament underlined the idea that the question of border determination might be considered separately, only after a peace agreement is signed between the two sides. This approach highlights a practical sequence: first establish a broader peace, then address the precise demarcation in due course.
According to the Armenian Speaker, the National Assembly, the path to normalizing relations could tolerate postponing the border issue until after a peace accord is reached. The emphasis is on creating a climate of trust and cooperation that makes it feasible to revisit the border question later on, rather than forcing rapid, brittle decisions. The speaker also noted that the process of defining and drawing the borders is complex and could span several years, reflecting the depth and sensitivity of the task for both sides and the region as a whole.
Meanwhile, high-ranking officials from neighboring Russia have spoken about the broader role of Russia in fostering regional stability. The First Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Army General Valery Gerasimov, reiterated that Russia is actively seeking and supporting the signing of a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This stance underscores Moscow’s interest in reducing tensions and creating a framework within which sensitive border questions can be resolved in a measured manner, with international involvement to bolster assurances.
A moment of heightened tension occurred when the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense announced the launch of a local anti-terrorism operation in Nagorno-Karabakh. The stated aims of the operation included suppressing large-scale provocations and disarming and withdrawing Armenian army units from the region. This development was closely watched by all parties, given its potential implications for regional stability and the delicate balance that peace efforts strive to achieve.
Responding to Azerbaijan’s assertions, the Armenian Ministry of Defense rejected the claim that Armenian troops remained within Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian side asserted that its forces were not occupying the territory, presenting a counter-narrative to the Azerbaijani statements. The exchange reflects the ongoing disputes over presence, control, and legitimacy in the area, a core component of broader negotiations.
With Russian mediation playing a key role, an agreement for a ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh was reached after further discussions. The ceasefire provisions included the disarmament of Armenian forces and the withdrawal of heavy equipment from the region, reflecting a concrete step toward de-escalation. This arrangement illustrates how third-party mediation can facilitate the implementation of sensitive terms, even as both sides continue to navigate their respective security and political interests and seek a durable political settlement.
Reflecting on these developments, Armenia’s leadership has also commented on statements from Russia regarding the status and ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh. The discussions underscore how interpretations of sovereignty, regional security guarantees, and local governance intersect with ongoing peace efforts. The situation remains fluid, with diplomacy, security considerations, and regional dynamics all influencing the direction of negotiations and the pace at which border issues can be resolved.